03/06/2000 - 4679�::.
P
OFFICIAL CITY CITY COUNCIL AGEND
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 6, 2000
y
t
i
A � �
. ,,
�
�
,
_ +
��
anror
fR1DLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ATTENDENCE SHEET
Manday, Ma�r.ch 6, 2000
7:30 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) ADDRESS
.� . �
ITEM
NUMBER
� /'� 3�0 .� �/` �C � �
;� ,,—�
/' � r �C: ✓`� r�- ��c> >-� C �� ,' ,�u� j_ %"�i <? r � � � �� � �//��:�-- �-r��,` � 11 c%u= �; 4 s
�� ��
,� ,� �3
� � .� �
c
. ��� � �\� ` �, ,, �� . �� � , � ��,.
4 �� \_ �
[ � � . �i �� � �// rl:�
C
�.C; 1�1--`--'� l � '1 � / � (�L� � � � ,� �� ,
; �' �`L�..��' f � � � l '" .� �
� -��;1�'�' �! n .C� > � _ - ,�c� ;�' (�.
� , �: � � � /
, �:
.
.,
, _
-�_�� � �-�� ,����� F. � � . � �- �,��
� r
-" - - u-�- -� - � � �� /�
�
(' 'ti vt ��°Y1 �V1 � ��.,.� � �� `-i � � l).%'Vi� u�-�. � � .� �
,
, : � ^ �°
/ v . � ° - ? • ' ,i�
� � � ( � - �- �,� ����
�� l ���; '� r�..�2��u � ���i���� � � �"-��:
, .
�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
CXTY OF
FRIDLEY
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or hazass anyone in the admission or access to, or
treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regazd to public
assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to
participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an
interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require a�iliary aids should contact Roberta. Collins at
5�2-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PRESENTATION:
Mary Billstein, Mediation Services of Anoka County
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of February 14, 2000
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing
Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code in its
Entirety and Adopting a New Chapter 31,
Entitled "Pawn Shops" and Amending
Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code Entitled
"General Provisions and Fees" -
..................................................... 1 18
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of February 15, 2000 ......................................................... 19 - 28
3. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split,
LS #00-01, to Establish Two Individual Parcels
on the Property, Generally Located at 1491
Rice Creek Road (by K. Robert Finnamore)
(Ward 2) ....................................................................................... 29 - 34
4. Approve Development Agreement befinreen the
City of Fridley and Ann L. Bateson, George F.
Bateson, Mary E. Pietrini and Dennis J. Pietrini
for Property Generally Located at the Northeast
Corner of Old Central and Heather Place (Ward 2) ...................... 35 - 41
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 3
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
5. Resolution Approving a Plat, PS #99-05, by
George Bateson, Ann Bateson, Dennis Pietrini,
and Mary Pietrini to Replat Property to
Accommodate Four Single Family Residential
Lots, Generally Located at the Northeast
Corner of Old Central and Heather Place (Vl/ard 2) :..................... 42 - 45
6. Approve Agreement for 2000 Residential Recycling
Program between the City of Fridley and the
Countyof Anoka ............................................................................ 46 - 54
7. Approve Agreement for Services Befinreen the
City of Fridley and Anoka County Community
Corrections................................................................................... 55 - 57
8. Receive Bids and Award Contract for Sanitary and
Storm Sewer Lining Project No. 329 ............................................. 58 - 64
9. Receive Bids and Award Contract for Miscellaneous
Concrete Curb and Gutter Project No. 330 ................................... 65 - 66
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 4
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
10. Receive Bids and Award Contract for 2000 Street
improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 2000-10 ........................ 67 - 70
11. Resolution Authorizing a Change in Mileage
Reimbursement Rates for the 2000 Calendar
Year _
....................................................................................... 71 72
12. Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing for
March 20, 2000, to Assess the Effect of the
Proposed Transfer of Ownership Between Time
Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc . ........................................... 73 - 76
13. Appointment — City Employee ...................................................... 77
14. Claims ....................................................................................... 78
15. Licenses ....................................................................................... 79 - 80
16. Estimates ...................................................................................... 81
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 5
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
(Consideration of Items not on Agenda —15 Minutes)
PUBLIC HEARING:
17. Establishing Restrictive Accounts for Excess
Police Pension Residual Assets and Adopting
a Plan for the Expenditure of Such Assets ................................... 82 - 83
OLD BUSINESS:
18. Variance Request, VAR #99-31, by Maui, Inc.
(Spikers Grille & Beachclub), to Reduce the
Parking Drive Aisle from 25 Feet to 22.5 Feet,
to Reduce the Parking Setback from the Rear
Lot Line from 5 Feet to 3 Feet, to Reduce the
Parking Stall Size from 10 x 20 Feet to 9 x 18
Feet, to Allow the Expansion of the Parking
Area, Generally Located at 1200 Osborne Road
N.E. (Ward 2) (Tabled January 3, 2000) ....................................... 84 - 100
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 6
NEW BUSINESS:
19. Resolution Establishing Restrictive Accounts
for Excess Police Pension Residual Assets and
Adopting a Plan for the Expenditure of Such
Assets....................................................................................... 101 - 102
20. Variance Request, VAR #00-02, by George Sroka,
to Reduce the Required Side yard Setback for an
Attached Accessory Structure from 5 Feet to 2 Feet
6 Inches to Allow the Expansion of an Existing
Garage, Generally Located at 1363 — 53�d Avenue N.E. .
(Ward 2) .....................:................................................................. 103 - 111
21. Informal Status Reports ................................................................ 112
ADJOURN.
.
PRESENTATION OF CHECKS FROM WAL MART
March 6, 2000
Brandon Sharp, Assistant Store Manager, will be at the Council meeting to present two checks.
Check Amounts:
$2,885.47 — This check was received last fall. Every Wal-Mart picks a certain date each year,
and a certain percenta.ge of the profits from that date are donated to a charity chosen by the
employees of each store. Employees from the Fridley Wal-Mart store chose the Springbrook
Nature Center.
$6,820 — Wetland Curriculum at the Natutre Center.
$5,000 — Fridley Community Center
.. ,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
�C�r -�� ��_ �' �
i-
QiY OF
PRIOIEY
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its
services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual
orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or
other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance.
(TTD/572-3534) `
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PRESENTATION:
Mary Billstein, Mediation Services of Anoka County
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
3. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Spiit,
LS #00-01, to Establish Two Individual Parcels
on the Property, Generally Located at 1491
Rice Creek Road (by K. Robert Finnamore)
(Ward 2) ................ ... ......... 29 - 34
��
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �� � �� j� �
1�
City Council Meeting of February 14, 2000 t�-� C��`�Vv�
�. _ � � o � �! � v�n �- � ( t.U��� lt,�-_ ��a � `
� � ��-� $
�,t>�� �'�`v�`��� e�a,a�,�.
W
OLD BUSINESS: 5.
Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing
Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code in its
Entirety and Adopting a New Chapter 31,
Entitled "Pawn Shops" and Amending
Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code Entitled
"General Provisions and Fees" .... 1- 18
a�d � ►,�
� �--
NEW BUSINESS:
Approve Development Agreement between the
City of Fridley and Ann L. Bateson, George F.
Bateson, Mary E. Pietrini and Dennis J. Pietrini
for Property Generally Located,at the Northeast
Corner of Old Central and Heather Place
(Ward 2) ................................... 35 - 41
Resolution Approving a Plat, FS #99-05, by
George Bateson, Ann Bateson, Dennis Pietrini,
and Mary Pietrini to Replat Property to
Accommodate Four Single Family Residential
Lots, Generally Located at the Northeast
Corner of Old Central an Heather Place
(Ward 2) ........... �:„ ..... .......... 42 - 45
�O�
6. Approve Agreement for 2000 Residential Recycling
Program between the City of Fridley and the
County of Anoka ........................... 46 - 54
Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of February 15, 2000 ....... 19 - 28 7. Approve Agreement for Services Between the
City of Fridley and Anoka County Community
Corrections .................................. 55 - 57
. . _• w
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVALOFPROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
8. Receive Bids and Award Contract for Sanitary
and Storm Sewer Lining Project
No. 329 .............................:.... 58 - 64
9. Receive Bids and Award Contract
for Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter
Project No. 330 ............................ 65 - 66
10. Receive Bids and Award Contract for 2000
Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project
No. ST. 2000-10 .......................... 67 - 70
11. Resolution Authorizing a Change in Miieage
Reimbursement Rates for the 2000 Calendar
Year ..... .:. ..� . ................ 71 - 72
� '
12. Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing for
March 20, 2000, to Assess the Effect of the
Proposed Transfer of Ownership Befinreen
Time Warner Inc. and e' a Online,
Inc. ............... . . .. ........ 73 - 76
13. Appointment — City Employee
77
14. Claims ................................... 78
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
15. Licenses ..................
16. Estimates
.. 79 - 80�
81
ADOPTION OF AGENDA. �-��i'�� -�k�
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
(Consideration of Items not on Agenda —15 Minutes)
PUBLiC Fi�ARING: �'? �� ' � � ����
� � �
17. Establishing Restrictive Accounts for Excess
Police Pension Residual Assets and
Adopting a Plan for the Expenditure of Such
Assets .................................. 82 - 83
�`�� i�� � �� � �°�--
��
�
OLD BUSINESS:
18. Variance Request, VAR #99-31, by Maui, Inc.
(Spikers Grille & Beachclub), to Reduce the
Parking Drive Aisle from 25 Feet to 22.5 Feet,
to Reduce the Parking Setback from the Rear
Lot Line from 5 Feet to 3 Feet, to Reduce the
Parking Stall Size from 10 x 20 Feet to 9 x 18
Feet, to Allow the Expansion of the Parking
Area, Generally Located at 1200 Osborne
Road N.E. (Ward 2) (Tabled January 3,
2000) ............... . ......�....... 84 - 100
�� � ���. .
���� ��
1u �
� � � ,
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6. 2000
NEW BUSINESS:
19. Resolution Establishing Restrictive Accounts �
for Excess Police Pension Residual Assets an °�
Adopting a Plan for the Expenditure of Such
Assets . �..�.,.��..�-� ................. 401 - 102
� � `� _
�✓ �
C���4�� .
20. Variance Request, VAR #00-02, by George Sroka,
to Reduce the Required Side yard Setback for an
Attached Accessory Structure from 5 Feet to
2 Feet 6 Inches to Allow the Expansion of an '
Existing Garage, Generally Located at 1363
53rd Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) ...; 103 -111
> � ��,
��`7f � � `� � nv�'`x`�`-6� '�'S;� � � � � � _ .
( �. �v �,�
�� �� �� �� �
�J
��� � �v,,,�-�' � �r ✓��� �-�-.
, ���
�
21. Informal Status Reports ..................... 112
ADJOURN. t .��� � � J �j �
�I � I�- ���--
PAGE 3
<il��� �
� �����
� -
THE MINUTES OF THE FRIDLEY GITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF FEBRUARY 14, 2000
�
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
OF FEBRUARY 14, 2000
The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember
Billings, and Councilmember Bolkcom.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Wolfe
STATEMENT OF MEETING CONDUCT:
Please be reminded that those present at today's meeting may hold a variety of views and
opinions regarding the business to be conducted. The exercise of democracy through
representative local government requires that ALL points of view be accommodated at these
proceedings. It is further expected that a standard of mutual courtesy and respectfulness be
exercised by all in attendance, through our individual expression, manner of speaking, and
conduct. Therefore, please receive the views of others with the same degree of courtesy and
respect which you desire to be given your views and opinions. Any departures from this
standard will be addressed by the Presiding Officer through whatever means are deemed
appropriate. Thank you for your attendance at today's meeting, and your agreement to abide by
these standards of personal conduct.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mayor Jorgenson stated that this item should be listed under the proposed consent agenda.
Cit�Council Meetin� of Februarv 7. 2000
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that on page 3, the word "Al" of the second stipulation for the
approved amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan should read as "All."
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, to approve the February 7, 2000 City Council meeting
minutes as corrected. Seconded by Councilmember Billings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14. 2000 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
OLD BUSINESS:
1. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY ADDING APPROVED SITES TO
CHAPTER 205, "ZONING," TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the proposed legislation would add the
Minneapolis Water Works site and the Minneapolis Water Works Pump Station No. 3 as
approved locations for telecommunications towers. The first reading of the ordinance
was appxoved by Council at its February 7 meeting. Staff recommended Council's
approval of the second and final reading.
WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1136 ON THE
SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF WELL
NOS. 3 AND 4:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City opened bids for repairs to Well Nos. 3 and
4 on February 7. There were three bidders for each project. The bids were as follows for
Well No. 3: Keys Well Drilling, $28,216.00; Bergerson-Caswell, $33,266.00; Mark
Traut Wells, $39,962.00; and for Well No. 4: Keys Well Drillling, $26,704.00;
Bergerson-Caswell $28,601.00; Mark Traut Wells $35,980.00. Staff recommended that
Council award both bids to the low bidder, Keys Well Drilling of St. Paul, Minnesota in
the amount of $28,216 for Well No. 3 and $26,704 for Well No. 4. Funding for these
well repairs is included in the 2000 capital improvements plan. Staff recommended
Council's approval.
RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED THE CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF
WELL NOS. 3 AND 4 TO THE LOW BIDDER, KEYS WELL DRILLING.
3. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 31 OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW
CHAPTER 31 ENTITLED "PAWN SHOPS" AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11
OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND
FEES":
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City proposed to require the pawn shop
ordinance in conjunction with our participation in the Minneapolis Automated Pawn
System. The most significant of the changes is a change in the fee schedule. Cunently,
the City has annual licensing fees that range between $10,000 and $15,000 for three
classes of pawn shops. The new legislation would establish a$3,000 annual license fee
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14 2000 PAGE 3
for all pawn shops. It would also establish a$1.50 transaction fee for every transaction
recorded in a pawn shop. The Public Safety Director believes that the combination of the
license fees and the transaction fees would be sufficient to allow the City to receive the
same stream of revenue under the new ordinance as it was receiving under the old
ordinance. Other changes were highlighted on pages 5 and 6 of the agenda book. Staff
recommended Council's approval.
WAIVED THE READING OF AND ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST
READING.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 16-2000 SUPPORTING THE REDESIGNATION OF TH65
AS AN EXPANSION ROUTE IN THE STATE TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that a 1998 MnDOT study concluded that additional
lanes were needed on Highway 65 to address current congestion problems. While the
study is in the process of being approved, Highway 65 continues to be designated as a
"management" highway rather than an"expansion" highway in the State's Transportation
Plan. This resolution asks that MnDOT amend their existing Transportation Plan by
identifying the Anoka County portion of Highway 65 as an "expansion" route. Without
this change, Fridley and other Anoka County cities would be at a disadvantage in seeking
funding for the upgrading of Highway 65. This resolution also suggests that Fridley work
with Anoka County cities to jointly seek this change. Staff recommended Council's
approvaL
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 16-2000.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 17-2000 ADOPTING THE MINNESOTA GENERAL
RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR CITIES:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City of Fridley has been using the General
Records Retention Schedule for Cities that was prepared by the Minnesota Clerks and
Finance Officers Association. The schedule, however, has never been adopted by
Council. This evening's action would correct that oversight. While the document defies
easy review, staff included sample pages from the schedule in Council's agenda books
and has made a hard copy of the schedule available for Council's review. Staff
recommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 17-2000.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 18-2000 DESIGNATING A NEW POLLING LOCATION
FOR WARD 1, PRECINCT 4:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this action changes the polling location for Ward 1,
Precinct 4, from the Fridley High School Auditorium to the Fridley Community Center.
Staff believed there would be fewer parking problems and fewer potential scheduling
conflicts as a result of this change. If approved, residents of the precinct would be
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PAGE 4
notified as well as the County Auditor and the Secretary of State. Staff recommended
Council's approvaL
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
AFTER ITEM 14 ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 19 2000 AFFIRMING THAT ALL PROPOSED TELECOM-
MUNICATIONS LEGISLATION RETAINS LOCAL FRANCHISING
AUTHORITY:
Mr. Burns, City Manger, stated that State legislation has been proposed that would
eliminate or severely limit local authority over cable television operations. Staff
proposed this resolution to request that any legislation retain local authority to define and
set standards for local telecommunications service through local cable franchises. This
authority would include the City's ability to require PEG access and institutional cable
channels. If approved, staff would send a copy of the resolution to the State legislative
delegation for Fridley. Staff recommended approval of this resolution.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED
AFTER ITEM 14 ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
8. MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR 2000
PLAYGROUND UPGRADES. PROJECT NO. 328:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that while money is not currently budgeted, staff
proposed that Council authorize the advertisement for bids for playground equipment.
This would be the sixth and final year of the City's playground equipment upgrade
program. Staff has identified $186,000 in the 2000 capital improvement plan for this
purpose. Parks included in this year's program would be Community, Creekridge,
Flanery, Jubilee and Locke. Under the program, equipment vendors are asked to identify
equipment for preschoolers and elementary age youth that they would install in each of
the five parks for a given amount of money. Staff would then invite residents of the
neighborhoods as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission to join them in
evaluating the playground equipment proposals. After this review, a recommendation is
prepared for Council consideration. Once the equipment is installed, Public Works staff
will complete playground safe zone modifications and install a safety surface path to
meet specification of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A formal supplemental
appropriation will need to be approved by Council to support the funding of these items.
Staff recommended Council's approval.
AUTHORIZED STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR 2000 PLAYGROUND
UPGRADES, PROJECT NO. 328.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14 2000 PAGE 5
9. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 6 2000 TO ADOPT A
SPENDING PLAN FOR THE EXCESS POLICE PENSION RESIDUAL ASSETS:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that in 1999 the State merged 44 local police and fire
pension funds with the State pension fund, PERA. The new law allows the over funded
amounts to be returned to the City after a public hearing is held and a resolution
designating how the money is to be used is passed. The money must be used for police
and/or public safety activities and must be accounted for separately. Staff recommended
that this public hearing be established for March 6, 2000.
ESTABLISHED A PUBLIC HEAIRNG FOR MARCH 6, 2000, TO ADOPT A
SPENDING PLAN FOR THE EXCESS POLICE PENSION RESIDUAL ASSETS.
10. CLAIM:
APPROVED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NOS. 91872 - 91997.
11. LICENSES:
APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED.
12. ESTIMATES:
APPROVED ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS:
Frederick W. Knaak, Esq.
Holstad and Knaak, P.L.C.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of January, 2000. $ 5,000.00
No persons in the audience spoke regarding the consent agenda items. Motion by
Councilmember Billings to approve the consent agenda items with the exception of Item Nos. 6
and 7 which are to be removed and placed on the regular agenda. Seconded by Councilmember
Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, to adopt the agenda as amended with the addition of Item
Nos. 6 and 7. Seconded by Councilmember Billings.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING OF FEBRUARY 14 2000 PAGE 6
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM. VISITORS:
Mayor Jorgenson invited members of the public to come forward to address any items not on the
agenda.
No persons in the audience came forward.
PUBLIC HEARING:
13. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2000 -1:
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Jon Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director, stated that this item is regarding the 2000
street improvement project. Staff proposed to reconstruct 715` Avenue from University East
Service Drive to the 73�d Avenue North Service Drive and the University East Service Drive
between 73�d Avenue and Osborne Road, 74`'' Avenue and Symphony Street and Symphony
Court.
This is part of the annual street reconstruction program that is based on some of the pavement
condition rating surveys that they do on a biannual basis. They group the areas for best
efficiency and construction and rotate for most projects throughout the City. They did hold a
neighborhood meeting on June 30, 1999. Nine people attended representing seven properties.
The project was explained to them. They will be reconstructing the streets and adding concrete,
curb and gutter. Curb and gutter will improve the drainage in the area, increase the durability of
the curb and will improve the image of the whole area. The street reconstruction is being done to
handle increased weight vehicles such as school buses, garbage trucks, plows and other vehicles.
The majority of the project is funded through the street budget. It is City policy, however, to
assess for concrete, curb and gutter.
Mayor Jorgenson asked if any members of the Council had any questions for staff.
Councilmember Billings asked how much of this area did not have concrete, curb and gutter
existing.
Mr. Haukaas stated that approximately 80 percent does not have concrete, curb, and gutter.
There is a low percentage of what they consider assessable footing because many along 73ra
Avenue are side yards which also include the park. The exception is University East Service
Drive which does have concrete, curb, and gutter on the east side. That is not assessable footage.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PAGE 7
Councilmember Billings stated that most of 73`d Avenue will not be assessed because it is side
yard, and most of the University Service Drive will not be assessed because curb and gutter exist.
They are looking at 73`d Avenue if properties face 73`d Avenue and a little on 74`'' Avenue and
Symphony Streets which do not have concrete, curb, and gutter.
Mr. Haukaas stated that was correct.
Mayor Jorgenson asked if anyone had any questions.
Mr. Bill Shaw, 7400 Lyric Lane, asked what the plan was for the rest of the development. He
has a side yard on 74"' Avenue with the frontage on Lyric Lane. He asked if there was a plan or
proposal for the entire neighborhood since the entire neighborhood is asphalt curb and gutter.
Mr. Haukaas stated that they will be looking at the rest of the streets which include Lyric Lane,
Tempo Terrace, Melody Drive, and Memory Lane in a future year grouped as a single project.
Mr. Shaw stated that he was in favor of the proposal, and he would just like to see the rest of the
area improved also. He asked if sewer and water repair was also in the proposal.
Mr. Haukaas stated that they would be doing spot repairs of sewer and water services and main
lines of the problem areas as they go. -
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if they were going to televise the plans.
Mr. Haukaas stated that they do televise the sanitary sewer prior to construction so they can
identify problems in the main lines. He said it is easiest to rely on residents to tell them when
they have regular problems, so that they can televise the service lines.
Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Haukaas if this proposal is not a replacement of the sewer main lines.
Mr. Burns stated that they may have trouble doing the main line in one year because of the
$500,000 cap.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how they would find problems with the sewer back-ups.
Mr. Haukaas stated that regular problems would be constant yearly servicing.
Mr. Shaw stated that he has been told that it is a recumng problem with his sewer main line.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
I�IOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:54 P.M.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL NIEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PAGE 8
14. RESOLUTION NO. 20-2000 ORDERING FINAL PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2000 - 1:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the resolution. Seconded by Councilmember
Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANINIOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 18-2000 DESIGNATING A NEW POLLING LOCATION
FOR WARD 1. PRECINCT 4:
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to delete the following:
Whereas, the City of Fridley completed construction of a Community
Center located behind the Fridley High School;
Whereas, the year 2000 is a major election year and voters will be calling
for polling locations;
Whereas, the County must mail out notifications of polling location
change prior to the election and notify the Secretary of State of the polling
location change.
Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 19-2000 AFFIRMING THAT ALL PROPOSED TELECOM-
MUNICATIONS LEGISLATION RETAINS LOCAL FRANCHISING
AUTHORITY:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the resolution. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR JORGENSON, COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM
AND COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON THE MATTER.
MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A THREE TO ONE
VOTE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14 2000 PAGE 9
15. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
Mr. Burns stated that the regularly scheduled conference meeting for February 28 has been
canceled.
Councilmember Billings stated that he wanted to provide a status update on a meeting held today
at the Anoka County Government Center. Governor Jesse Ventura, Commissioner of
Transportation, Elwyn Tinklenberg, and the Chair of the Metropolitan Council, Ted Mondale,
provided their transportation program for the year 2000 legislature. The Governor indicated that
the Northstar Corridor development along the Santa FeBurlington Northern Railroad line from
Minneapolis to St. Cloud was a priority item for his administration and he felt that was the next
segment of rail to be funded by the State of Minnesota.
I_� I�I�If1;7►`A
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
FEBRUARY 14, 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:54 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Signe L. Johnson Nancy J. Jorgenson
Recording Secretary Mayor
° Fridley Police Department
� Memorandum -
�
To: �Iliam W. Burns ,� I'
�
From: Dave Sallman
Date: March 2, 2000
Re: Pawn Shop Ordinance
On February 14, 2000 the first reading of the proposed new Pawn Shop Ordinance (Chapter 31)
was conducted at the regular meeting of the City Council. There were no changes to the
proposed ordinance which is attached. The second reading is scheduled for March 6, 2000. Staff
recommends approval.
l�
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 31 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS
ENTIRETY, AND ADOPTIP�IG A NEW CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED "PAWN SHOPS" AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED ��GENERAL
PROVISIONS AND FEES"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
That Chapter 31 of the Fridley City Code entitled "Pawn Shops" be hereby repealed in its entirety
and replaced with the language in Section 2 of this ordinance.
Section 2.
That Chapter 31 of the Fridley Code entitled "Pawn Shops" be hereby replaced with the following
language: �
31.01. PURPOSE
The City Council fmds that the use of services provided by pawnbrokers provides an opportiuiity
for the commission of crimes and their concealment because pawn businesses have the ability to
receive and transfer property stolen by others easily and quickly. The City Council also fmds that
consumer protection regulation is warranted in transactions involving pawnbrokers. They City
Council further finds that the pawn industry has outgrown the city's current ability to effectively or
efficiently identify criminal activity related to pawn shops. The purpose of this chapter is to
prevent pawn businesses from being used as facilities for the commission of crimes and to assure
that such businesses comply with basic consumer protection standards, thereby protecting the
public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city.
To help the police department better regulate current and future pawn businesses, decrease and
stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn industry, and increase identification of
criminal activities in the pawn industry through the timely collection and sharing of pawn
transaction information, this chapter also implements and establishes the required use of the
Automated Pawn System (APS).
31.02. DEFII�IITIONS
The following words and terms when used in this Chapter sha11 have the following meanings:
l. Licensee.
The person, corporation, partnership, or association to whom a license is issued under this Chapter
including any agents or employees of the person, corporation, partnership, or association.
2
2. Mirior.
Any natural person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
3. Pawnbroker.
A person, corporation, partnership, or association who loans money on deposit or pledge of
personal property or other valuable things or who deals in the purchasing of personal properly or
other valuable things on condition of selling the same back again at a stipulated price or who loans
money secured by security interest on personal property or any part thereof. To the extent that a
pawnbroker's business includes buying personal property previously used, rented or leased, or
selling it on consignment, the provisions of this chapter sha11 be applicable. This Chapter does not
apply to a person, corporation, partnership, or association doing business under and as permitted by
any law of this State or of the United States relating to banks, building and loan associations,
savings and loan associations, trust companies or credit unions.
4. Public Safety Director.
The Public Safety Director of the City of Fridley or the Director's designee.
5. City.
The City of Fridley, Minnesota, a municipal corporation.
6. Reportable Transaction.
Every transaction conducted by a pawnbroker in which merchandise is received through a pawn,
purchase, consignment or trade; or in which a pawn is renewed, extended, redeemed or voided, is a
reportable transaction except:
A. The bulk purchase or consignment of new or used merchandise from a merchant,
manufacturer, or wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and
the retail sale of said merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record
of such purchase or consignment which describes each item, and must mark each
item in a manner which relates it to that transaction record.
B. Retail and wholesale sales of inerchandise originally received by pawn or purchase,
and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption periods have expired.
7. Billable Transactions.
Every reportable transaction conducted by a pawnbroker except renewals, redemptions, or
extensions of existing pawns on items previously reported and continuously in the licensee's
possession is a billable transaction.
3
8. Acceptable Identification.
Acceptable forms of identification are a current valid Minnesota driver's license, a current valid
Minnesota identification card, or a current valid photo identification card issued by another state or
a province of Canada. �
31.03. LICENSE REQUIRED.
No person, corporation, partnership, or association shall exercise, carry on or be engaged in the
trade or business of pawnbroker without first obtaining a license from the City as provided in this
Chapter. �
31.04. INITIAL LICENSE APPLICATION.
1. General.
Applications for pawnbrokers' licenses to be issued under this Chapter shall contain information as
required on forms prescribed by the City.
2. Nature of Application.
The application shall state whether the applicant is a natural person, corporation, partnership or
other form of organiza.tion.
3. Natural Person.
If applicant is a natural person, the following information shall be furnished:
A. True name, place and date of birth and street residence address, and length of time at
that address, of applicant.
B. Whether applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than his true name
and, if so, what was such name or names, and information concerning dates and
places where used.
C. The name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style
other than the full individual name of the applicant.
D. " Kind, name and locatiori of every business or occupation applicant has been
engaged in during the proceeding five (5) years.
E. Names and addresses of applicant's employers and partners, if any, for the
proceeding five (5) years.
�
F. Whether applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, gross misdemeanor or
misdemeanor, excluding traffic violations, and if so, the date and place of conviction
and the nature of the offense.
G. If applicant has not resided in the City for three (3) yeazs last preceding the date of
application, at least four (4) character references from residents of the State of
Minnesota.
4. Partnership.
If applicant is a partnership, the names ancl addresses of all partners and all information concerning
each partner as is required of a single applicant. A managing partner, or partners, sha11 be
designated. The interest of eacl� partner in the business shall be disclosed.
5. Corporation.
If applicant is a corporation or other association, the following information shall be required.
A. Name and, if incorporated, the sta.te of incorporation.
B. A true copy of the certificate of incorpora.tion, articles of incorporation or
association agreement and by-laws and, if a foreign corporation, a certificate of
authority as described in Minnesota Statutes.
C. The name of ttie operating officer or proprietor or other agent in chazge of the
premises to be licensed, giving all the information about said person as is required
of a single applicant. As used in this Chapter, the term "operating officer" shall
mean the person responsible for the day-to-day operating decisions of the licensed
premises.
D. A list of all persons who, singly or together with their spouse, or a pazent,
brother, sister or child or either of them, own or control an interest in said
corporation or association in excess of five percent (5%) or who are officers or
directors of said corporation or association; together with their addresses and all
information as is required of a single applicant.
6. New Manager.
When a licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named manager(s) in charge of a
licensed business changes, the licensee must complete and submit the appropriate application
within fourteen (14) days. The application must include a11 appropriate information required in
section 31.04.
e
5
7. Description of Premises.
A. Legal Description.
The exact legal description of the premises to be licensed, together with a plot plan of the
area for which the license is sought showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access
parking facilities.
B. Street Address.
The street address of the premises for which application is made.
8. _ Taxes.
Whether or not all real estate taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the City, State or
Federal government for the business and premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not paid,
the yeazs for which delinquent.
9. Other Information Required.
Such other information as the City Council shall require.
31.05. RENEWAL APPLICATIONS.
License Period, Expiration.
Each renewal license shall be issued for a maa{imum period of one year.
31.06. EXECUTION OF APPLICATION.
If application is by a natural person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if by a
corporation, by an o�cer thereof; if by a partnership, by one of the general partners; if by an
incorporated association, by the operating officer or managing officer thereof. If the applicant is a
partnership, the application, license and bond sha11 be made and issued in the name of a11 partners.
Any false statement in an application shall result in denial of the application.
31.07. GRANTING LICENSES.
1. At the time of making an initial or renewal application, the applicant sha11, in writing,
authorize the Police Department to investigate a11 facts set out in the application and do a
personal background and criminal record check on the applicant. The applicant sha11 further
authorize the Police Departrnent to release information received from such investigation to
the City Council.
�
2. Each license shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable.
Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and shall not
be transferable to a different location.
4. No change in ownership, control or location of a license shall be permitted except by
amendment to the license which amendment must be approved by the City Council.
No more than two (2) licenses sha11 be issued by the City at any time and priority shall be
given to qualified applicants for renewal of e�cisting license.
31.08 LICENSE FEES ESTABLISHED.
1. Billable Transaction Fees
Licensees shall pay a monthly transaction fee on alI billable transactions as specified in Chapter 11,
General Provisions and Fees, of the Fridley City Code. Such fee shall be due and payable within
30 days. Failure to timely pay the billable transaction fee shall constitute a violation of this section.
2. Annual Fees.
The annual license fee for all licenses required by this Chapter shall be in the amounts as specified
in Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees, of the Fridley City Code.
3. Investigation Fees.
At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant shall pay, in full, an investigation
fee. The investigation fee shall be as specified in Chapter 11, General Provisions and Fees, of the
Fridley City Code. �
31.09 PAYMENT OF FEES.
Initial Fees.
The annual license and investigation fee for a new license sha11 be paid in full before the application
for the license is accepted. Upon rejection of any application for a license or upon withdrawal of an
application before approval of the issuance by the Council, the license fee only shall be refunded to
the applicant except where rejection is for a willful misstatement in the license application. If any
investigation outside the State of Minnesota is required, the applicant shall be charged the cost
which shall be paid by the applicant, prior to issuance of a license, after deducting the initial
investigation fee, whether or not the license is granted.
7
2. Pro Rated Fee for New Licenses.
If the application for a new license under this Chapter is made during a license year, a license may
be issued for the remainder of the license year for a fee assessed proportionally by the number of
months remaining in the license year. Any fraction of a month will be counted as a complete
month.
No refund, reduction, or adjustment of a license fee shall be made to any licensee that ceases
operation during the term of the license.
3. Renewal Fees
The annual license fee for renewal of a license shall be paid in full at the time the renewal
application is filed with the City.
31.10. BOND REQUIRED.
At the time of filing an application for a license, the applicant shall file a bond in the amount of
Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) with the City. The bond, with a duly licensed surety company as
surety thereon, must be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Said bond must be conditioned
that the licensee shall observe the ordinances of the City, in relation to the business of pawnbroker,
and that the licensee will account for and deliver to any person legally entitled thereto any articles
which may have come into the possession of the licensee as pawnbroker or in lieu thereof such
licensee shall pay the person or'persons the reasonable value thereof.
31.11. PERSONS AND PLACES INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE.
1. No license shall be granted to or held by any person who:
A. Is a minor at the time the application is filed.
B. Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed, as
prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, and has not shown competent evidence of
sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a pawnbroker.
31.12. CONDITIONS OF LICENSES.
1. Records.
Every licensee, at the time of any reportable transaction other than renewals, extensions or
redemptions, shall immediately record, in English, on forms or in an electronic data storage and
retrieval system approved by the Public Safety Director, the following information:
:
A. A complete and accurate description of the article, including but not limited to, any
manufacturer name, brand name, model number, serial number, identification
number, or other identifying mark.
B. The amount of money received by the person pawning, pledging, ar selling the
article, together with the annual• rate of interest and the amount required to redeem
the article if it was pawned or pledged.
C. The date, time and place of receipt of the article, and the unique alpha and/or
numeric transaction identifier that distinguishes it from all other transactions in the
licensee's records. Transaction identifiers must be consecutively numbered.
D. The full name, date of birth, current address of residence, current telephone number
if possessed, and a reasonably accurate description of the person from wfiom the
article was received including at a minimum sex, height, weight, and race, color of
eyes and color of hair.
E. The identification number and state of issue from an acceptable form of
identification.
F. The name or unique identifier of the licensee or employee that conducted the
transaction.
G. The signature of the person identified in the transaction.
H. The licensee must also take a color photograph or color video recording of:
a. Each customer involved in a billable transaction.
b. Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification
number permanently engraved or affixed.
If a photograph is taken, it must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2)
inches in width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be
readily matched and correlated with a11 other records of the transaction to which it
relates. Such photographs must be available to the Public Safety Director or his
designee upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include an
identifiable front facial close-up of the person who pawned or sold the item. Items
photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform the person
that he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a
conspicuous place in the premises. If a video photograph is taken, the video camera
must zoom in on that person's face. Items photographed by video must be
accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time
and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the
transaction to which they relate. The licensee must inform the person that he or she
is being videotaped orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a
9
conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the exposed videotape
for three (3) months and surrendering it to the police department upon request.
I. Effective sixty (60) days from notification by the police department, licensees must
fulfill the color photograph requirements in section 31.12.1.H by submitting them as
digital images, in a format specifiecl by the issuing authority, electronically cross-
referenced to the reportable transaction they are associated with. Notwithstanding
the digital images may be captured from required video recordings, this provision
does not alter or amend the requirements in subdivision H.
J. For renewals, e�ensions and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original
transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, the type of transaction.
2. Disposition of Articles.
A. When an article of pawned or pledged property is redeemed from a licensee, the
records shall contain an account of such redemption with the date, interest charges
accrued, and the total amount for which the article was redeemed.
B. When an article of purchased or forfeited property is sold or disposed of by a
licensee and tlie licensee receives one-hundred dollars ($100.00) or more in
payment thereof, the records shall contain an account of such sale with the date, the
amount for which the article was sold, and the full name, current address, and
telephone number of the person to whom sold.
3. Inspection of Records.
The records referred to in this section shall be open to the inspection of the Public Safety Director at
all reasonable times and shall be retained by the licensee for at least three (3) years. Entries of
required digital images shall be retained a minimum of ninety (90) days.
4. Label Required
b
Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is pawned, purchased or received in
inventory from any reportable transaction. Permanently recorded on this label must be the number
or name that identifies the transaction in the pawn shop's records, the transaction date, the name of
the item and the description or the model and serial number of the item as reported to the police
department, whichever is applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can be sold, if
applicable. Labels shall not be reused.
5. Receipt.
Every licensee must provide a receipt to the party identified in every reportable transaction and
must maintain a duplicate of that receipt for three (3) years. The receipt must include at least the
following information:
!�
A. The name, address and telephone number of the licensed business.
B. The date and time the item was received by the licensee.
C. Whether the item was pawned or sold, or the nature of the transaction.
D. An accurate description of each item received including, but not limited to, any
trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or
other identifying mark on such an item.
E. The signature of unique identifier or the licensee or employee that conducted the
transaction.
F. The amount advanced or paid.
G. The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and chazges.
H. The last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed by the pledgor
without risk that the item will be sold, and the amount necessary to redeem the
pawned item on that date.
I. The full name, residence address, residence telephone number, and date of birth of
the pledgor or seller.
J. The identification number and state of issue from an acceptable form of
identification.
K. Description of the pledgor or seller including sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes
and color of hair.
L. The signature of the pledgor or seller.
M. All printed statements as required by Minnesota State Statute 325J.04, subdivision
2, or any other applicable statutes.
6. Daily Reports to Police.
A. Unless otherwiSe authorized by the Police Department, licensees must provide to
the Police Department the information required in section 31.12.1 by transferring
that informatiori from their computer to the Police Department via modem. All
required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of
business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the
City of Fridley using a dial callback protocol or other procedures that address
security concerns of the licensees and the City of Fridley. The licensee must display
11
a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place on the premises, which informs all
patrons that a11 transaction are reported to the Police Department daily.
B. Licensees will be charged monthly for billable transactions at the current rate
established by the City Council.
C. If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by modem, the
licensee must provide the Police Department printed copies of all reportable
transactions along with the video tapes(s) for that date by 12:00 o'clock noon the
next business day. If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is
not corrected by the close of the first business day follo�ving the failure, the licensee
must provide the required reports as provided for herein, but may be charged a
reporting failure penalty, established by the City Council, each day until the error is
corrected. If the problem is determined to be outside the licensee's system, the
licensee must continue to provide the information as provided herein, and resubmit
all such transactions via modem when the error is corrected. Regardless of the
cause or origin of the technical problems that prevented the licensee from uploading
their reportable transactions, upon correction of the problem, the licensee shall
upload every reportable transaction from every business day the problem existed.
D. If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or transmit the photographs required in
section 31.12.1 the licensee must immediately take all required photographs with a
still camera, immediately develop the pictures, cross reference the photographs to
the correct transaction, and deliver them to the Police Department by 12:00 o'clock
noon the next business day. Licensees may be subject to an additional chazge for
each photograph submitted in this manner after the close of the first business day
following failure.
E. Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the Public Safety Director, or his
designee, upon presentation of extenuating circumstances, may extend the period
before any additional charges are imposed for the manual reporting of billable
transactions.
7. Redemption Period.
Any person pledging, pawning or depositing an article of property for security sha11 have a
minimum of ninety (90) days from the date of that transaction to redeem the article before it may be
forfeited and sold. During the ninety (90) day holding period articles shall not be removed from the
licensed premises.
Licensee's are prohibited from redeeming any article of property to anyone other than the person to
whom the receipt was issued; or to any person identified in a written and notarized authorization to
redeem the article(s) of property identified in the receipt; or to a person identified in writing by the
pledgor at the time of the initial transaction and signed Uy the pledgor; or with the approval of the
12
Public Safety Director. Written authorization for release of articles of property to persons other
than the original pledgor must be maintained along with the original transaction record.
8. Holding Period.
No article of property pledged, pawned or on deposit for security with any licensee shall be
permitted to be redeemed for a period of seventy-two (72) hours from the date of transaction,
excluding Sundays and holidays, except upon written authorization of the Public Safety Director.
No article of property purchased by a licensee may be sold or otherwise disposed of for thirty (30)
days from the date of the transaction except that articles of property for which there exists a valid
certificate of title issued by ttie State of Minnesota, showing ownership and registration by the
person from whom the article was received, may be sold or otherwise disposed of ten (10) days
from the date of transaction.
9. Police Restrictions on Sale or Redemption.
A. Investigative Hold.
Whenever a law enforcement official from any agency, acting in the course and scope of his
or her duties, notifies a licensee not to sell or permit to be redeemed an article of property in
the licensee's possession, the article may not be sold, redeemed or removed from the
premises by the licensee. The Investigative Hold shall be confirmed in writing by the
originating agency within seventy-two (72) hours and will remain in efFect for fifteen (15)
days from the date of notification, or until the hold is canceled, or until a Police Hold is
issued pursuant to section 31.12.9.B, or until the article is confiscated, whichever comes
first.
B. Police Hold.
Whenever the Public Safety Director notifies a licensee not to sell or permit to be redeemed
an article of property in the licensee's possession, the article may not be sold, redeemed or
removed from the premises by the licensee. The Police Hold shall be confirmed in writing
within seventy-two (72} hours and will remain in effect for ninety (90) days from the date of
notification unless the �Public Safety Director determines the hold is still necessary and
notifies the licensee in writing. When a Police Hold is no longer needed the Public Safety
Director shall so notify the licensee.
C. Confiscation.
If an article of property in the licensee's possession is determined to be stolen, it may be
confiscated and seized as evidence by any police officer. A request for restitution from any
person charged in regards to the stolen property confiscated shall be made on behalf of the
licensee. When an article of property is confiscated, the person doing so sha11 provide
identification upon request of the licensee, the name and telephone number of the
13
confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number of the police report related to the
confiscation.
10. Payment by Check.
Payment of more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) by any licensee for any article deposited, left,
purchased, pledged or pawned sha11 be made only by a check, draft or other negotiable or
nonnegotiable instrument or order of withdrawal which is drawn against funds held by a financial
institution.
11. Posting License.
All licensees shall post their licenses, in a conspicuous place, in the licensed premises under the
licensed activity.
12. Responsibility of Licensee.
The conduct of agents or employees of a licensee, while engaged in performance of their duties for
their principal or employer under such license, shall be deemed the conduct of the licensee.
13. Penalty for Property Owner.
It is unlawful for any person who owns or controls any real property to knowingly pernut it to be
used for pawnbrokering without a license required by this Chapter.
14. Business at Only One Place.
A license under this Chapter authorizes the licensee to car�y on its business only at the permanent
place of business designated in the license. However, upon written request, the Public Safety
Director may approve an off-site locked and secure storage facility. The licensee shall permit
inspection of the facility in accordance with section 31.14. All provisions of this Chapter regarding
record keeping and reporting apply to the facility and its contents. Articles of property shall be
stored in compliance with all provisions of the city code.
31.13. RESTRICTED TRANSACTIONS.
1. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any
article of property from any person on any day of the week before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00
p.m.
2. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any
article of property from any minor or from any person of unsound mind or from an
intoxicated person.
14
No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any
article of property which contains an altered or obliterated serial number or an article of
property whose serial number has been removed.
4. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any
article of property knowing, or having reason to know, that the article of property is
encumbered by a security interest. For the purpose of this section "security interest" means
an interest in property which secures payment or other performance of an obligation.
5. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any
article of property, from any person, knowing, or having reason to know, that said person is
not the true and correct owner of the property.
6. No licensee nor any agent or employee of a licensee shall purchase, accept, or receive any
article of property, from any person, without first having examined an acceptable form of
identification.
31.14. Inspection
1. Premises.
Any licensee shall, at all times during the term of the license, allow the Public Safety Director to
enter the premises, where the licensee is carrying on business, including a11 off-site storage facilities
as authorized in section 31.12.14, during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the
purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the articles and records therein to locate goods
suspected or alleged to have been stolen and to verify compliance with this Chapter or other
applicable laws. No licensee shall conceal any article in his possession from the Public Safety
Director.
2. Inspection by Police or Claimed Owner.
All articles of property coming into the possession of any licensee, under the terms hereof, shall be
open to inspection and right of examination of any police officer or any person claiming to ha.ve
been the owner thereof or claiming to have had an interest therein when such person is
accompanied by a police officer.
31.15. CONDUCT OF PERSONS ON LICENSED PREMISES.
No person may pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any article of property not their own;
nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit the property of another, whether
with pernussion or without; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any
article of property in which another has a security interest; with any licensee.
2. No minor may pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any article of property with any licensee.
15
3: No person may pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any article of property with any
licensee without first having presented an acceptable form of identification.
4. All licensees shall by adequate signage and separate written notice inform persons seeking
to pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit articles of property with the licensee of the foregoing
requirements.
For the purpose of this section "adequate signage" shall be deemed to mean at least one sign, of not
less than four (4) square feet in surface area, comprised of lettering of not less than three-quarters
(3/4) of an inch in height, posted in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises and stating
substantially the following:
TO PAWN OR SELL PROPERTY:
YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE.
YOU MUST BE TI� TRUE OWNER OF TI-� PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY MUST BE FREE OF ALL CLAIMS AND LIENS.
YOU MUST PRESENT VALID PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
VIOLATION OF ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS A CRIME.
For the purpose of this section "sepazate written notice" shall be deemed to mean either the receipt,
as required in section 31.12.5, or a printed form, incorporating a statement to the effect that the
person pawning, pledging, selling, leaving, or depositing the article is at least eighteen (18) years of
age; is the true owner of the article; and that the article is free of all claims and liens; which is
acknowledged by way of signature of the person pawning, pledging, selling, leaving, or depositing
the article.
5. No person seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, leave, or deposit any article of property with any
licensee sha11 give a false or fictitious name; nor give a false date of birth; nor give a false or
out of date address of residence or telephone number; nor present a false driver's license or
identification cazd; to any licensee.
31.16. CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS OR ASSOCIATIONS.
1. Licenses issued to corporations shall be valid only as long as there is no change in the
officers or ownership interest of the corporation unless such change is approved by the
Council, in which event said license shall continue in force until the end of the then current
license year. Failure to report any change in stockholders, officers, or managers shall be
grounds for the revocation of all licenses held by the corporation. Every corporation
licensed under the provisions of this section sha11 adopt and maintain in its bylaws a
provision that no transfer of stock is valid or effective unless approved by the City Council
16
and shall require that all of its certificates of stock shall have printed on the face thereof:
"The transfer of this stock certificate is invalid unless approved by the Ciry Council of
Fridley, Minnesota," and failure to comply with this provision sha11 be grounds for the
revocation of all licenses held b}� the corporation. The provisions of this section shall not
apply to the issuance of any license to a corporation whose stock is traded on a public stock
exchange.
2. Licenses issued to associations or partnerships shall be valid only as long as there is no
change in the partnersl�ip or association agreement or in the ownership of said partnership
or association unless such change is approved by the Council, in which event said license
shall continue in force until the end of the then current license yeaz.
3. Corporation, partnerships or associations shall submit written notice to the City of any such
changes described herei� on or before thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any such
change. In case of a corporation, the licensee shall submit written notice to the City when a
person not listed in the initial application will be acquiring an interest and sha11 give all
information about said person as is required of a person pursuant to the provisions of this
Chapter.
31.17. REFUSAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION.
1. It is unlawful for any applicant to make a false sta.tement or omission upon any application
form. Any false statement in such application, or any omission to state any information
called for on such application form, shall upon discovery of such falsehood, work an
automatic refusal of license, or if already issued, shall render any license issued pursuant
thereto, void. Prior issuance is no effect to protect the applicant from prosecution for
violation of this section or any part hereof.
2. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this Chapter for operation
on any premises on which real estate taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the City
or of the State are delinquent, or unpaid.
3. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this Chapter upon a finding
of a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any State Statute regulating
pawnbrokers. Any conviction by the pawnbroker for theft, receiving stolen property or any
other crime or violation involving stolen property shall result in the immediate suspension
pending a hearing on revocation of any license issued hereunder.
4. Except in the case of a suspension pending a hearing on revocation, a revocation or
suspension of a license by the Council shall be preceded by a public hearing. The hearing
notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, include notice of the time
and place of the hearing, and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee.
17
31.18. PENALTY
Violation of any provision of this article shall be a misdemeanor.
Section 3.
That Chapter 11 of the Fridley City code entitled "General Provisions and Fees," Section 11.10, be
amended to read as follows:
11.10. FEES
Chapter 11.10, "Fees" is amended to include the following Pawn Shop fees:
CODE SUBJECT
31 Pawn Shops
FEE
Annual License Fee
Monthly Transaction Fee
Reporting Failure Penalty
Investigation Fee
$3,000
$1.50 per transaction
$2.50 per transaction
$400
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TI-� CITY COUNCIL OF TI� CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF MARCH, 2000.
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publication:
February 14, 2000
March 6, 2000
:
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 15. 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage calfed the February 16, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Brad Sielaff,
Connie Modig
Members Absent: Larry Kuechle, Dean Saba
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Paul Bolin, Planner
Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator
Robert Finnamore, 3209 Louisiana Ave. N., Crystal
Darlene Finnamore, 3209 Louisiana Ave. N., Crystal
Ruby A. Anderson, 1491 Rice Creek Rd.
Charlie Kocourek, 1811 26�' Avenue N.E., Minneapolis
Marlys Kocourek, 1811 26�' Avenue N.E., Minneapolis
Dennis Dewing, 1501 Camelot Lane
APPROVE JANUARY 18 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the January 18, 2000,
Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Lot Split Request, L.S. #00-01, by K. Robert Finnamore, to split off a portion of
the property to create an additional single family lot, legally described as Lot 2,
Block 2, Spring Valley, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 1491 Rice
Creek Road.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:31 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner is seeking a lot split to split Lot 2, Block 2, of the
Spring Valley Addition in half in order to construct an additional single family home
generally located at 1491 Rice Creek Road. The property is located on the corner of
19
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 2
Rice Creek Road and an unimproved po�tion of Arthur Street. There is a 33-foot right-
of-way that runs along the eastern edge of this property. The property is zoned R-1, as
are all of the surrounding properties. An existing home is located on the south half of
this property. A minirnum lot size of 9,000 square feet is required for single family
homes. After the lot split, both lots would still have over 18,000 square feet.
Mr. Bolin stated that both parcels would be 125 feet wide and approximately 150 feet
long. The northerly parcel would be 18,749 square feet. The southerly parcel would be
18,830 square feet. The existing home on the southerly parcel will still meet all of the
code requirements for setbacks. A setback would be over 55 feet from Rice Creek
Road and 51 feet from the west side yard. The garage is set back almost six feet from
the east property line. The rear property line is also set back approximately 62 feet.
Splitting this property in half would not have any impacts to the existing home.
Mr. Bolin stated the access to the new northerly parcel would come off Camelot Lane. It
does have 150 feet of frontage and has 27 feet of improved frontage on Camelot. The
remainder along Arthur Street is unimproved frontage; but since it is over 25 feet on the
improved surface, it meets the code requirements for the lot. There is a ditch that runs
20 feet along the northem edge of the northern parcel. The Engineering Department
requested five feet along the eastern edge and the western edge of both properties and
ten feet on either edge of the common boundary between the two properties. Any
driveway that is put into the northerly property should be kept at least ten feet away
from that fire hydrant that is near the nartherly lot as suggested by the Engineering
department. They have talked with the petitioner about the possibility of having to
relocate the fire hydrant if they want a shorter driveway.
Mr. Bolin stated that staff recommends approval of this lot split with stipulations. Both of
the lots exceed the City's required size standards. It is a good opportunity for infill
development as Fridley is a fairly well developed suburb and does not have acres of
undeveloped land. Staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire
western boundary of both parcels.
2. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire
eastern boundary of both parcels.
3. The petitioner shall grant a 10-foot utility and drainage easement along each side of
the common boundary line between the two parcels.
4. The petitioner shall grant a 20-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire
northern boundary of the northern parcel. ,
5. The petitioner shall pay a$750 park dedication fee for the new lot prior to issuance
of building permit.
6. The petitioner is responsible for all utility relocation costs including, but nof limited to,
labor materials and restoration.
7. The petitioner shall pay all service connection fees.
8. The petitioner is responsible for all street and curb restoration to City standards.
9. The petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas.
10.The petitioner shall maintain drainage ditch along north property line.
11. The petitioner shall maintain a 10-foot clearance befinreen driveway and hydrant.
Z�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 3
12. The driveway location shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
13. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the new house shall be marked and approved by City
Staff prior to issuance of the building permit.
Ms. Savage asked if the City had received any calls regarding this request.
Mr. Bolin stated they have not had a single call against the project.
Mr. Kondrick asked if stipulation #10 was regarding the northerly parcel.
Mr. Bolin stated, yes, it is regarding the northerly property line of the northerly parcel.
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Bolin how close the existing garage would be to the road once it
is constructed.
Mr. Bolin stated that there are no plans to install the road. It is only a half-roadway at 33
feet. The City would need to take an additional 33 feet to put the road through. They
would have to acquire property to the east of this property.
Mr. Kondrick asked that if the City did decide to put in the road, would the petitioner
have to move his garage?
Mr. Bolin stated that if that were to become a corner lot, the garage would need to be
set back 17.5 feet.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the drainage ditch to the north allowed enough space for a driveway.
Mr. Bolin stated that having the drainage easement across there will keep the driveway
out of the ditch area. The Engineering Department wants to keep the driveway out of
the northernmost 20 feet and away from the fire hydrant. Arthur Street is a public right-
of-way, so it is possible for the petitioner to put a driveway in off Camelot and come in
south of that hydrant. This could be for a double garage with a 20-foot driveway.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there will be enough space for a drainage ditch.
Mr. Bolin stated, yes.
Ms. Modig stated that the petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas. There
are easement areas around the entire area. There are already drainage problems and
the lot will not be level.
Mr. Bolin stated that by restricting the petitioner for putting fill in the easements will allow
the drainage for this area to function as it has in the past.
Ms. Modig asked if the amount of water there would interfere with the building of the
basements?
21
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 4
Mr. Bolin stated that would be a question for the petitioner and the builder, but
stipulation #9 protects those natural drainage areas.
The petitioner, Mr. Finnamore, stated he had nothing to add.
Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the 13 stipulations.
Mr. Finnamore stated that he does not.
Mr. Herb Lennox, 1461 Rice Creek Rd., stated that he has a property west of Ruby
Anderson, the neighboring property. He has no problem with it being split, he has lived
here since 1962, and the drainage easement in his yard is to keep the level for Harris
Lake. His backyard runs uphill and he does not have any trouble with water. His
concern is where the runoff is going to come from the house that will be put in there.
Mr. Bolin stated that storm water management is taken into consideration as part of this
process. That is the reason for keeping these easements to manage the runoff on the
property and keep things as close to predevelopment as they can. The engineers have
looked at this and as soon as they get the building plans they will have more input.
Mr. Sielaff asked where the roof drainage would be directed.
Mr. Bolin stated that would be looked at once they have an actual site plan with a
building located on there and the type of structure is chosen. There should be enough
surface to dry in any water runoff of a roof on almost a half-acre.
Mr. Sielaff stated that he would be a little concerned about the drainage being handled
correctly when hard surface is being added to a lot that already has drainage problems
Mr. Bolin stated that will be considered during the building permit process.
Mr. Dennis Dewing, 1501 Camelot Lane, stated that he lives kitty corner from the lot.
There is a walking path with the continuation of Arthur Street and will that be
maintained? Tk�e City used to maintain the ditch; but since it is a watershed, they do not
go in and pull the cattails or anything anymore. He bought his house in 1980 and every
house in that area has sump pumps. He does not have water problems. On both sides
of the property there is a berm. He is concerned they would lose that walking path area.
There is an easement by Harris Lake on Diana Court where the owners of the property
would not let anybody go through there, and kids would have to go out on Mississippi
Street to go to the park.
Mr. Oquist stated that this property will have no effect on Arthur Street. The driveway
will be on the west side of Arthur Street. The whole north/south corridor of Arthur will
still be there and will not change.
Ms. Savage asked if he was opposed to the lot split.
ZZ
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 5
Mr. Dewing stated that he was not opposed.
Ms. Judy Lennox, 1461 Rice Creek Rd., stated that she lives in the lot to the west of the
property. She was told several years ago that the easement on the north side was
declared wetlands and it is not to be maintained. Stipulation #9 states that it will be
maintained.
Mr. Bolin stated that it meant to keep the ditch in place and not fill it in.
Mr. Charlie Kocourek, 1811 26th Avenue, Mpls., stated that he currently has a purchase
agreement with Ms. Ruby Anderson contingent on this lot split. His intention as the
perspective owner is to sell the existing house and build a house on the lot in question.
They like the path the way it is. His question is if they can put fill anywhere in order to
put in a driveway. He had no idea the water problems were so involved.
Mr. Dewing asked if the City has any intention of selling the strip of land.
Mr. Bolin stated that there is no intention of selling it. Keeping that right-of-way allows
an opportunity to get utilities through there. It also helps with the drainage in the area.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated that it sounds like a pretty good project; and if there are no objections
to the stipulations, he would be in favor of the request.
Ms. Modig stated that she does not have any problem with it either. It is fairly
straightforward.
Ms. Savage agreed that the lot split conforms with the City's requirements.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the Lot Split Request,
#00-01, by Robert Finnamore with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire
western boundary of both parcels.
2. The petitioner shall grant a 5-foot utility and drainage easement along the entire
eastern boundary of both parcels.
3. The petitioner shall grant a 10-foot utility and drainage easement along each side of
the common boundary line between the two parcels.
4. The petitioner shall grant a 20 foot utility and drainage easement a long the entire
northern boundary of the northerly parcel.
5. The petitioner shall pay a$750 park dedication fee for the new lot prior to issuance
of building permit.
6. The petitioner is responsible for all utility relocation costs including, but not limited to,
labor materials and restoration.
23
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 6
7. The petitioner shall pay all service connection fees.
8. The petitioner is responsible for all street and curb restoration to City standards.
9. The petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas.
10. Petitioner shall maintain drainage ditch along the northernmost parcel's property
line.
11. The petitioner shall maintain a 10-foot clearance between driveway and hydrant.
12.The driveway location shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
13.The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the new house shall be marked and approved by City
Staff prior to issuance of the building permit.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated that this would go to the City Council on March 6, 2000.
2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9. 1999, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
December 9, 1999, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18. 2000, EN_VIRONMENTAL
QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the
January 18, 2000, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 2000, APPEALS
COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the January
26, 2000, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
►'' '
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 7
5. DISCUSS GATEWAY EAST:
M�. Fernelius stated that he has been responsible for overseeing the Gateway East
project. The project is located at the northeast quadrant of 57�' Avenue and University
Avenue. The properties involved are the vacant lot adjacent to the Rapid Oil Change
and the Valvoline station on the corner. This includes the se►vice drive that runs north,
JR's Automotive property, and a vacant lot next to that to the east. A residential duplex
is also to the east of that. The northern boundary would be the Cash-n-Pawn property,
including a portion of 57�' Avenue.
Mr. Fernelius stated that the site is comprised of five parcels, roughly two and a half
acres in size. This has been identified as a redevelopment priority for a number of
years. The Fridiey HRA has acquired three of the sites in the project area. This
includes the duplex, the Cash-N-Pawn property, and JR's Automotive. They were
unsuccessful in reaching a voluntary negotiation on the two vacant lots, so they are now
in the process of condemnation finalized by the end of this month. The schedule is to
demolish the structures that are there in the spring and go through a developers'
selection process. They would go through the land use approval process in the summer
with the goal of trying to break ground sometime in the fall.
Mr. Fernelius stated that they are looking at an owner-occupied townhome
development. It would be a good location due to its proximity to the 57�' Avenue
commercial corridor and located along a transit bus stop and close to other
transportation areas. Residential use would be more compatible with the neighborhood
to the east that includes a combination of multi-family and single-family properties. It
would also be close to the Medtronic campus.
Mr. Fernelius stated that the demand for this project was shown in the Maxfield Housing
study completed last year that identified a need for about 550 units of new housing over
the next 20 years citywide. Higher density would be appropriate at this location. The
site could accommodate between 24-32 units. It would likely be a 2-3 story design
similar to the Christianson Crossing project. The other factor is the financial issue that
impacts the density. A moderate density project like this allows both the developer and
the City to help recover more of its costs in a development project. Lower density would
spread out that cost of fewer units which would increase the risk to both parties. There
is strong demand for this kind of project based on the two projects seen in the last four
or five years.
Mr. Fernelius stated that the street alignment and site plan options are important in
terms of planning. They have identified three plans in terms of how it could be
configured. Option A would leave the frontage road intact and a cul-de-sac would be
installed at the end of 57�''/2 Avenue. Fourth Street to the east would have a
connection constructed and they have two pieces to the development. The southern
parcel would still be owned and they would include that as pa�t of the development
project separated from the other development. Option B would involve removing the
service drive off 4�' Street and then onto University Avenue to the west. The 4�' Street
connection would be provided, and they would also have a connection onto 57�'1/2
Avenue to travel to the University Avenue service drive. Option C provides the same
25
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 8
access point except that there would not be a connection to the existing neighborhood
at 4t" and 57�' Avenue. This would alleviate traffic problems and needs to be evaluated
more. �
Mr. Oquist asked if access to this property would be on the service road to the north for
all three options.
Mr. Fernelius stated that is correct.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the property would be all one piece of property in Option B.
Mr. Fernelius stated that one of the concerns is providing access to the businesses
along the University Avenue Service Drive. There is also a utility easement that runs
along 57th Place. That is for a sewer line remaining in the project area and is something
they will have to work around. Option B and C contemplate closing off their access
point to the service drive on the north side. The businesses are aware of that issue and
are concerned about it. They have not had any discussions with them, but they have
been informed of it.
Mr. Sielaff stated that Option A has a portion of the redevelopment area surrounded by
streets or Valvoline.
Ms. Dacy stated that is correct.
Mr. Oquist stated that they would all have the Valvoline in the picture and they cannot
get away from that.
Mr. Fernelius stated that they wanted to outline some options to provide a developer
and ideally provide a preferred option.
Mr. Sielaff asked for more information about the need for 550 units. How many people
would be housed here?
Mr. Fernelius stated that this could accommodate 24-32 units.
Ms. Dacy stated that Maxfield was asked to project into the future the population and
household growth. They took a lot of information from the Metropolitan Council and
looked at births and deaths and immigration and location.
Ms. Savage stated that she thought that study was before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Dacy stated that Mary Bujold came to the Commission in May of 1999.
Ms. Savage stated that additional housing is a need.
Mr. Sielaff asked how demand is measured.
26
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 9
Ms. Dacy stated they look at building permits and how quickly developments have sold
and the market area from a larger perspective. They ask the construction community
what the marketplace is producing. The report stated that Fridley has good location but
not a lot of new housing to attract new households.
Ms. Modig asked if the zoning had to be changed.
Ms. Dacy stated that Mr. Fernelius is going to address that in his power point
presentation yet to be finished.
Mr. Fernelius stated that some of the planning issues to be worked on are the unit
design and the layout. The developer will have to negotiate that with staff and the City.
A neighborhood meeting will be conducted in March for feedback. They will then
prepare an RFP (request for proposals) and send it out to developers in April or May.
They will select a developer in June and then begin the contract negotiation with the
developer in July. They will start the land use approval process in August or September
and then break ground in the fall.
Ms. Savage stated that it sounds like a good project and will improve that part of the
City.
Mr. Kondrick asked if it would be logical to go further north to include that area as well.
Ms. Dacy stated that they have not contemplated that because of the cost issue.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he is a proponent of decorative fencing. Would fencing similar.
to the Christianson Crossing fencing be constructed?
Ms. Dacy stated, yes. They are looking at rezoning all of the redevelopment area plus
the Valvoline site as the S-2 Redevelopment District. They did that for the Christianson
Crossing site as well. It provides a lot of flexibility in terms of site design for setbacks. It
would give the City the ability to control any reuse of the site in the future.
Mr. Sielaff asked what kind of demographics they are trying to attract at the site.
Mr. Fernelius stated that it would include young professionals, some empty nesters
wanting to downsize from an existing single-family home, and young couples without
children.
Mr. Sielaff stated that multi-levels would attract people who are healthy and in-shape
and who can handle stairs.
Mr. Fernelius stated that they are looking at a housing product they believe would be
successful on that corner, and younger people are more likely to buy that type of
housing.
Mr. Sielaff stated that one of the debates is that they would like to attract families in the
City.
27
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PAGE 10
Mr. Fernelius stated they would try to include as many amenities as possible that would
be attractive to families.
Mr. Sielaff asked if they had data whether or not the Fridley empty nesters ended up
buying those houses at Christianson Crossing.
Ms. Dacy stated that there are some, but she does not have exact data on that.
Mr. Kondrick asked if they considered green spaces and streets when they figured out
the number of units. The development may be too dense there.
Mr. Oquist stated that more one-story units may be something to consider there. Will
they be doing similar things on the west side where the used car lots used to be?
Ms. Dacy stated, yes, but the City Council directed the City to focus the resources on
this side to see if they could get a successful project and then go back to the
neighborhood across the street.
6. UPDATE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Ms. Dacy stated that they will have more information on March 1.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE FEBRUARY 16, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION
WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:32 P.M.
RespectFully submitted,
, . ��2�,�-�
Sign L. Jo .son �
Recording Secretary
:
: AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
cm oF
FRIDLEY
Date: 2/29/00
To: William Burns; City Manager ,-���I"� �
J
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planner
RE: Planning Commission action on LS #00-01 M-00-35
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fridley has been asked by K. Robert Finnamore to grant a lot split, of Ruby
Anderson's property at 1491 Rice Creek Road, allowing the construction of a single family
home on the newly created lot. Both lots, if the split is granted, would meet all zoning code
requirements for lot size and setbacks.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for LS
#00-01. A motion was made to approve Lot Split, LS #00-01, to allow the property located
at 1491 Rice Creek Road to be split into two lots.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the planning commission and grant
the proposed Lot Split, LS #00-01, with stipulations as presented.
29
�
O
C�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
Ric,
e C r� e k Road
30
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT, LS #00-01, TO
ESTABLISH TWO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS ON THE PROPERTY, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1491 RICE CREEK ROAD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Lot Split, LS
#00-01, on February 16, 2000 and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at the March 6, 2000 meeting approved the Lot Split
request; and �
WHEREAS, such approval was to establish two residential lots on the existing
residential lot, based on new legal descriptions which read as follows; and
Proposed Northerly Parcel: The North 150' of Lot 2, Block 2, SPRING VALLEY,
Anoka County, Minnesota.
Proposed Southerly Parcel: The South 150' of Lot 2, Block 2, SPRING VALLEY,
Anoka County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the City has received the required Certificate of Survey from the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fridley
directs the petitioner to record this Lot Split at Anoka county within six (6) months or
said approval shall become null and void.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
THIS 6"i DAY OF March 2000.
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
31
City of Fridley Land Use Application
LS-00-01 February 16, 2000
GENERAL L�IFORNIATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
K. Robert Finnamore Ruby
Anderson
3209 Louisiana 1491 Rice Crk Rd.
Crystal, MN �5427 Fridley, MN
55432
Requested Action: '
Lot Split
Purpose:
To create an additional single family
lot.
Existing Zoning:
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Location:
1491 Rice Creek Road NE
Size:
37,579 square feet .86 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family home.
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family & R-1
E: Single Family & R-1
S: Single Family & R-1
W: Single Familv & R-1
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning Ordinance Conformance:
Proposed lot sizes exceed City Code
requirements.
Zoning History:
• Home built prior to 1949
• Lot platted in 1941
Legal Description of Property:
Lot 2, Block 2, Spring Valley
Public Utilities:
Water and sewer are available
at the site.
Transportation:
32
Arthur Street & Rice Creek Road
provide access to the site.
Physical Characteristics:
Level, well kept yard with large trees.
SUM�L-�RY OF PROJECT
K.R. Finnamore, petitioner, is seeking to split
the lot in order to construct an additional
single family home.
SUVIlVIARY OF ANALYSIS
Ciry Staff recommends approval of this lot split
request.
Proposed lots exceed the size standards
required by the City of Fridley Zoning Code.
Fridley requires that lots in an R-1 district be
a minimum of 75' in width with a minimum
total lot area of 9,000 square feet. The
proposed lots would be125' X 150' (18,750
sq. ft.) in size.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
March 6, 2000
Existing Home
Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin
LS 00-01
ANALYSIS
K. Robert Finnamore, petitioner, is seeking to split the North'/2 of Lot 2, Block 2, Spring
Valley in order to construct an additional single family home.
The entire property is relatively flat, covered by large trees, and extends north from Rice
Creek Road 300'. The proposed lots would both be approximately 125' X 150' (18,750 sq.
ft.) in size.
Currently there is an older home, built prior to 1949, and a garage located on the southern
portion of the lot. This home will remain in place, on proposed Southerly Parcel, as it does
meet all required setbacks. ,
City engineering staff has addressed their concerns over drainage issues, utility
installation, and driveway location through a series of stipulations. The natural drainage
found on this site will be protected and preserved through utility and drainage easements.
The Northerly Parcel will be accessed from Camelot Lane, with the driveway location to be
approved by the City Engineering Department. This parcel has 27' of frontage on Camelot
Lane (code only requires 25') and 123' of frontage along (the unimproved) Arthur Street.
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends approval of this lot split request, with stipu/ations.
Proposed lots exceed the size standards required by the City of Fridley Zoning Code.
Fridley requires that lots in an R-1 district be a minimum of 75' in width with a minimum
total lot area of 9,000 square feet. The proposed lots would be approximately 125' x 150'
(18,800 square feet� in total size.v __ . __. _ , __ , , , ^ �_ .
North edge of property.
_ '-� ^: � , �
33
STIPULATIONS
Staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached to the lot split.
1. Petitioner to grant 5' utility and drainage easement along the entire western boundary of
both parcels.
2. Petitioner to grant 5' utility and drainage easement along the entire eastern boundary of
both parcels.
3. Petitioner to grant 10' utility and drainage easement along each side of the common
boundary line between the two parcels.
4. Petitioner to grant 20' utility and drainage easement along the entire northern boundary
of the Northerly Parcel.
5. Petitioner to pay $750 park dedication fee for new lot prior to issuance of building
permit.
6. Petitioner responsible for all utility relocation costs, including, but not limited to labor,
materials, & restoration.
7. Petitioner to pay all service connection fees.
8. Petitioner responsible for all street & curb restoration to City standards.
9. Petitioner shall not place fill in any easement areas.
10. Petitioner shall maintain drainage ditch along North property line.
11. Maintain 10' clearance befinreen driveway and hydrant.
12. Driveway location to be reviewed and approved by City Engineering Department.
13. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the new house shall be marked and approved by City staff
prior to issuance of the building permit.
�
� AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
qTY OF
FRIDLEY
DATE: March 1, 2000
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager .� �
�
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: Development Aqreement for the Heather Hills North Addition
On October 25, 1999, the City Council approved the Heather Hills North Addition preliminary
plat at the northeast Corner of Old Central and Heather Place. At a August 9�' meeting on a
similar plat, City Attorney, Fritz Knaak, suggested that due to the complexity and number of
stipulations, that a development agreement be required to be filed with the plat. To be
consistent with that plat, staff has prepared an agreement for Heather Hills North.
That development agreement has been attached for your review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed development agreement as submitted.
M-00-39
35
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this ___�� day of _���_ , 2000,
between the City of Fridley, acting through its Mayor and City Manager (hereinafter
called the "City"), and Ann L. Bateson, George F. Bateson, Mary E. Pietrini, and
Dennis J. Pietrini, (hereinafter called the "Developers").
WHEREAS, The Developers have made application to the City Council for the
approval of a plat of land within the corporate limits of the City described as follows:
See attached Exhibit A.
(the "Subdivision"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution #_ ___, adopted
�__�___, 2000, granted Developer's plat request for a portion of the property
to allow it to construct four single family homes on the subdivision on the condition
that the subdivision is developed according to the site plan, dated ,
2000, and in accordance with stipulations of approval incorporated herein by
reference (See attached Exhibit B).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby agreed as
follows
1. Improvements. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
♦ Concrete curb and gutter repair at driveway aprons
♦ Approved site grading and drainage plans
♦ Underground utilities for the four new homes
♦ Setting of lot and block monuments
♦ Surveying and staking
♦ Temporary tree protection devices
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards,
ordinances, City Council prescribed stipulations, and technical specifications.
The Developers, future owner, its contractor or subcor�tractors, shall construct
four new single family homes.
The Developers, future owner, its contractors or subcontractors, shall follow all
instructions received from the City's inspectors. The Developer, future owner, their
engineer or builders shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually
agreeable time at the City Hall with all parties concerned, including the City Staff, to
review the program for the construction of each home.
2. Water and Sewer A water and sewer lateral fee assessment will be
applied to each lot.
36
(A) The Developers, future owner, its contractor, or subcontractors shall stub
water and sewer services to the three additional lots located off Heather ,
Place. These water and sewer services shall be inspected and must meet
all City standards. The City (at the developer's expense) will patch the
street following the installation of water and sewer services, the
Developers, future owner, its contractors, or subcontractors must have the
cut approved by the Public Works Department of the City.
3. Gradinq, Erosion Control, and Tree Preservation Plans. The
Developers, future owner, its contractor, or subcontractor shall submit a grading and
drainage, erosion control, and tree preservation plan which shall clearly show for
each lot:
(A) The grading limits for the construction of the new home.
(B) All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfill operations shall
be re-sodded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area.
Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan. If the
Developers, future homeowner, its contractor, or subcontractor does
not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or
supplementary instructions received from the City and the Anoka
County Soil and Water Conservation District, or the Rice Creek
Watershed District, the City may take such action as it deems
appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the
Developers, future homeowner, contractor, or subcontractor in
advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will
not affect the Developers' and City's rights or obligations hereunder.
(C)The location of warning signage (tree protection ribbon) that will be
placed around the perimeter of the construction limits protecting all
significant trees outside the construction limits.
(D)The location of any significant trees to be saved inside the
construction limits. Any significant trees to be saved shall have
fencing around them, which shall extend wherever possible to the
tree drip line. No construction or grading work shall commence until
the City staff has field inspected items (1) and (2) above.
4. Street Clean Up. At any time upon the request of City staff and after the
construction is complete, the Developers shall clear all soil, earth, or debris from the
streets and storm sewer and from the lots within the development resulting from any
construction on the land within the development by the Developers, future owners,
contractors and subcontractors.
5. Permits. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits for the
development of the property. The Developers, future owners, contractors, or
subcontractors shall pay SAC fees at the time of the building permit issuance.
37
6. Park Dedication. In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the
City, the Developer shall pay a park dedication fee at a rate of $750.00 per lot at the
time of building permit issuance. The total park dedication fee for the development
is $3,000.00. (four lots x $750.00 = $3,000.00).
7. Drainaqe Easement. The Developer shall provide the City with
easements dedicated orr the plat over the 4 lots of the property as proposed in the
Final Plat mylars presented for signature.
8. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees,
officers, and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and
inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development.
9. Final Plat Aqproval. The City agrees to give final approval and shall sign
the final plat of the subdivision upon execution and delivery of this agreement, and
approval of the plat by the County and of all required petitions, bonds, and security.
10. Leqal Proceedinqs. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute
any proper action of proceeding at law or at equity to abate violation of this
Development Agreement, or to prevent use or occupancy of the proposed
dwellings.
11. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion of the work and
construction required by this agreement, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property without further notice or action.
12. Transfers of Interest . The Developer agrees that it will not sell, rent, nor
cause to be occupied, any premises constructed on the development or within the
development until the City has approved the construction of the improvements
covered by this Development Agreement, the applicable building codes, and other
applicable government regulations and has issued a Certificate of Occupancy,
unless the City has agreed in writing to waive this requirement as to specific
premises.
13. Attornevs' Fees. The Developer agrees to pay the City reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the event of any lawsuit ar action is
commenced to enforce the terms of this agreement and to collect sums due by the
City under the terms of this agreement.
14. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
paragraph, or phrase of this contract is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not invalidate
or render unenforceable any other provisions of this contract, and the remaining
provisions of this contract shall not in any way be affected or impaired.
:
15. Bindinq Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns if any
of the Developers and City hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all
or any part of the subdivision, and shall be deemed covenants running with the land.
Reference in this document to the developer, if there be more than one, shall mean
each and all of them. This agreement, at the option of the City, shall be placed of
record so as to give notice of this agreement to subsequent purchasers and
encumbrances of all or any part of the subdivision. All recording fees, if any, shall
be paid by the developer.
SIGNED AND EXEGUTED by the parties hereto on this � day of
--------, 2000
DEVELOPERS
By�-----------
Mary L. Bateson
By�-----------
George F. Bateson
By�-----------
Mary E. Pietrini
By�------------
Dennis J. Pietrini
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
39
CITY OF FRIDLEY
By�----------------------
Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor
�0 ' d �ti101
Exhibit A
�
� � � � � �, � ,� ,:.
,�i � i= � _ � �� ,�J I :r.
�r��� � ----�` -- --`�—�---
I �v I �� � ~ � ,' � `• ' �
. _ �'�i ■ �1 � ' v y. I ' , �^ • I �
� "S' � � I = I - tl;: m ,.
� � � ' � ' � ,. v.u��. ' ;;; /
fV = �� �� rwu�sursio__. ,, �
,�ji -- ,
� :�:� � •� ' ��,��Ci� i� •'= •
� !9 � � � �
���::; 6�s�� � p �� � �� � a� �
='� Ba�S -- --------- ----- °s
� .,
.�.i V ; au�w�� __,, ;, ; _ ,
� �. � % �,�r. , ' � ,,,�.
',� .C'i r IE� 'Is —�'Qi— (� � i�ATHER PLACE_ � � ir�
�g� ., �' ,�� , f�' �� . �� ir��
.s. � � � 1 "�- �
� �_� . I� � � .. � m i �,.r; ,, ui \ � ` � �
r�� � U ' � � � .�� � � � �
�`� - � � � N I ' � I � �, w .� � � ` �
�
��il � � � � � � � \ �+ .}•; � � �. — —
' � Ot l 9 �
�!� ( � � / \
a� i� �_, N ; �, �= �Jr, �,
,:
,� t4
i� I I � / � \� !`v`.�
��� �� � / � / T �.
• � / �� r r' v 1 ��%��
��� ¢ ��� � � 1 I f \
l����� �1 Q ;� �� �- � p� •r � ��� ���
�x� � � � � � � �; � ��� ��, � ��4 - � ( g
. � $ � r s�, � �, � � l� t�; �
� � R� l f � i
�#� � � � �� � � �� � # �� � � �� ,,, �
�, � . � � � � � � � ;� �
,� � �� � , �.
��s Q i �;1 � �� �� , � � � ;
9 ���� y � t�� � } , �� �
��� � �� p ,i � � � � �
�� € �s� � � � � � � � � �
,b ( ���_ � ��t � r ] � �� A
•/ j �_�� � ��� i � i � !� �
sb I�� �_P � r � f o� �
: �� �
�.
�� � � �
ia! �
�f
e =�
��5 � $
�� I
t��
���
��s
���
���
��
���
�r�
�
�
�
:
�
�
�
f
E
�
l�[
x��
��
:�
.�
_��
���
`�t
��
��:
.�
�
�Y
�:�
��
�'
d
.
�
�
�
�
f
�
�
}
�
�
S
�
�
1
S
.
l �
�
�
�
�
r
�
\�
�.' �.
�� /'
��a��,
e�a� -�
• \�
� `�• �
� .. `,�
�
��l
r• . . �
��, �2: m
�-� c,i� �
I Y,� _+ �
�: �
I `-� �" �
I •_- / �
�
i �� ��
� ��
�� � �
�
f
�� ��
;� �
r ��i
� t
�
� ��
� �!
s `�
� r?
. �i
� �i
� r�
� � ��
� �
� �
�
1—
�
t�
�
O
�
�
�
��
���
� �
�
�
£0�£0 ' d L009 98L zI9 �N I SNOS 8 QfI�I ' J' 3 Sb : 90 000z-20-?!dW
EXHIBIT B- STIPULATIONS APPROVED BY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
1. Grading and drainage plans to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the
issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
properties.
2. Petitioner shall provide a 20' drainage and utility easement along the easterly and
southerly property lines of proposed Lot 4.
3. Petitioner shall provide a 12' drainage and utility easement along the northerly property
line of proposed lots 1,2,3 & 4.
4. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on
the site are properly capped or removed.
5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
6. Petitioner shall pay $750.00 per lot park fee prior to issuance of building permits.
7. Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees.
8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City staff
prior to issuance of building permits.
41
= AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
cmr oF
FRIDLEY
DATE: March 1, 2000 �
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ,��
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: Final Plat for Heather Hills North
On October 25, 1999, the City Council approved the Heather Hills North preliminary plat to
create four lots at the northeast Corner of Old Central and Heather Place. The Planning
Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this request at that meeting.
Staff has reviewed the Final Plat mylars and has confirmed the accuracy of the document as
it relates to both City and County requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed plat with the 8 stipulations approved with the
preliminary plat.
M-00-40
�
RESOLUTION NO. -2000
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT, PS #99-05, BY GEORGE BATESON, ANN
BATESON , DENNIS PIETRINI, AND MARY PIETRINI TO REPLAT PROPE,RTY TO
ACCOMMODATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD CENTRAL AND HEATHER
PLACE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heid a public hearing on October 6, 1999, and
recommended approval of said plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council app`roved the preliminary plat for the HEATHER HILLS NORTH at
their October 25, 2000, meeting, with stipulations attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the HEATHER HILLS NORTH replaces the former Lots 20
and 21, Auditor's Subdivision Number 22; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the HEATHER HILLS NORTH has been attached as Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ciry Council approves the Final Plat for
HEATHER HILLS NORTH and directs the petitioner to record plat at Anoka Coun#y within six
months of this approval or such approval shall be null and void.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 6"i
DAY OF MARCH, 2000.
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
43
EXHIBIT A- STIPULATIONS APPROVED BY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
1. Grading and drainage plans to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to the
issuance of ariy building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding
properties.
2. Petitioner shall provide a 20' drainage and utility easement along the easterly and
southerly property lines of proposed Lot 4.
3. Petitioner shall provide a 12' drainage and utility easement along the northerly
property line of proposed lots 1,2,3 & 4.
4. Provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located
on the site are properly capped or removed.
5. During construction, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
6. Petitioner shall pay $750.00 per lot park fee prior to issuance of building permits.
7. Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees.
8. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All trees
required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved by City
staff prior to issuance of building permits.
..
�0 ' d �dl�l
��t B
v � I � 'n rn I � I�, \ ui
� � �� f .T I � I .c% , '• _
�� 1� �� � � � � • � � � �.I � � �. ~ ��
�� , �� ' ~ `�. � -4�. � .'
r f v w m �
. � w tT•) � }� 2 � y.. � I �a - ^ , � I / � /.
,, � � � �I � ( ' •ly � / ��,
fa ::� ;' ' � aui.ursp__: , orww. ;;; ���/
� `�o�'�
i �►,� -- � � �
n :�:i �� • � ' � �. �' �i � � r •?: � ;.` � �
_ �! �
' �� :� s� � �i o p � � � E � " � � � � ~ ' `-\�
`'j ai�S -- ----._� ,^-- g - ,
.� �.
.I V 1 ffUTi.i:T = � %, � 1
, 'L,I " ` '
� � { ;� ��•
Y+% .-•' fi� �la V�� � .e�ire��ual �' � �"r r� t��
���.`' � ` — — — — HEATF�ft PLACE .L Y�� I ='�
.F, � :� �,t � �� . (:. , �;�rE;�,;:_ a �::��� . $" y �j �
��.,-� � 1 � � ... � z I .�.� \ � 1 � �' � � ~ e' �
i y: I m in �+ •
��� �� !'+ � = f ,{' ,� ' �+ \ I .� :I:
�� � ��"'� � m � _—` ._J �+ � ° �"� i"' �
�a � � }-- — — -1 A � �^ — � �--�-.�
��� I � � ; � .ti� / r �,,,_, � ,_ ; :+�- —{
��p ' � � � ^' � � �� -� °' J� , ��+ ' � ;�• -'
�p� i 1� � � ! i i ^^ � - , r ,; i � , �
�� � r I �� / , �, h+'.0 �u � � � `" m
., Y �1`
( N � � � / �—�/ r. l v �` '' v� ( S_s �
w v� ! �
��� � � OI V � 1 1 � � \ �
�;���� :d � �
,.�jz� � � � � � � ��� � ��� � ��i '� � ��4 ^ � �( g i � �� �
�1'��� � � S �� �� �t� � i � � � ��¢� _�, r-
e�� � � ,� � �i � � ��� � # '� � � �� � '' r � ��
.I � . � �— � P ��€ . U'
.a� e �� ��� � � � e ,. . �
��� � L � '� � � � �$ � ' � � � a �� t�
�� � � ���� � ' � � � � � � �� � '� �t Z
�i € $8� �� � � � i � � � � O
�� I i���l � �!t � �' � � �� p � •
'� A .� s � �� r � : � �� � : �� �
sa ; � ��e i �'{s � ( r o� � t �i ""�
l
� �
� � �� �
�
�� E � �
ia! � i
��
�� ,
� � `!
.� � �
a
#��
�,�
��
���
��
�
�
�
�
1
�
�
�
�
E
�
��
�h
��:
��
���
���
���
a
��:
���=
��
�'�
�
;�
��
d
.
�
�
�
� ',
i
�
�
i
a
�
�
3
I
�
a
( . _ . -
S
.
��
�
�
�
�
r
�
� f�
� #�
.�
.�
�
�_
. �i
� �t
r*
� � �i
� � �
�
�
��
A��
��
�
�
` AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 6, 2000
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: February 29, 2000
To: William Burns, City Manager �,
��
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Julie Jones, Planner/Recycling Coord'mator
Subject: 2000 SCORE Recycling Funding Agreement
Background:
We have now received the 2000 Anoka County Residential Recycling Agreement. This agreement allows us
to receive up to $75,218.56 in state SCORE funds from Anoka County to subsidize the cost of our 2000
residential recycling program. This amount is in accordance to the amount we estunated when preparing the
2000 budget last year.
There are no noticeable changes from the 1999 agreement.
See the attached report for details on Fridley's record-setting recycling efforts in 1999.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve this agreement at the March 6 City Council meeting for the
City Clerk and Mayor's signatures so that the City will qualify for our first 2000 SCORE payment mid-year.
. �
�
♦ 1999 Year End Fridley Recycling Report
� �
��
Summary
The previous year has been another record setting year for recycling in Fridley. The City's
overall residential recycling amount was more than ever recorded before in history, and, at the
same time, the operating costs for our recycling programs decreased 28% from 1998. The
decrease in operating costs was due to the decision to discontinue operation of the Fridley
Recycling Center, which closed January 31, 1999.
The main reason for the increase in residential recycling is more materials being collected
curbside. The increased amount of recyclables collected curbside more than made up for the loss
of materials we formerly collected at the Recycling Center, which was a major concern when we
closed the Recycling Center.
Fridley Reported Recycling Levels 1988-1999
�
���
Y i/�h
� � �'f':" )�i�. ��. n(' � �' )
_. : Y::r . ..v..� :C.�
1�1 �N
,:::^��! � - � � Y
^'�\��:_� ✓✓.��'�' ��
N� : Vj�n
11 .w.��. ucl' �' �N
�
� ��l � �
� � � ,:>- , r� y ��� �� � � .
�Sx ,ti: ,�',
500
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
As in the previous two years, the City of Fridley achieved our County recycling goal in 1999.
Never before, however, had the City of Fridley achieved more than an 8% over the previous
year's total recycling level, allowing the City to qualify for reimbursement of normally ineligible
expenses — like yard waste collection — the following year. In 1999, the City achieved 117% of
the 1998 recycling level. The 1999 residential recycling total for Fridley was 3092 tons or 124%
of the County goal.
Curbside Recycling
The tons of materials collected by the City's curbside recycling contractor in 1999 increased 432
tons from 1998 figures. This equals 498 pounds per household per year — a significant increase
from previous years and exceeding the City's goal of 475 pounds per household. The weekly
participation rate also improved from 44%on average in 1998 to 52% in 1999.
Staff believes that much of the increases can be contributed to closure of the recycling center,
which forced more residents to rely on the curbsj�,�ecycling service. Improved service from a
�i�7
different contractor, which began serving Fridley in April, 1999, could also be impacting
collection amounts.
Monthly Drop Off Days
Monthly drop off days were started in 1999, where the City hired vendors to accept certain
recyclables the second Saturday of the month, April through November. This substitution for the
previously operated Recycling Center proved to be very useful and cost effective. Although,
participation was dismal until our special electronics recycling day in November, the drop offs
did serve the purpose of giving Fridley residents an opportunity to recycling items that could not
be added to our curbside program.
The cost of providing the monthly drop off days came in below our budget of $10,000 at a cost
of $7,220. This cost is not including the special electronics recycling event. Although the
electronics event cost the City an additional $11,000 to finance, the cost of it was totally
reimbursable with SCORE funds. The electronics event was also extremely popular with the
public, which inundated our sit� on November 13, 1999, bringing in 29 tons of materials that
day, including 11 tons of electronics.
A total of 68 tons was generated from the monthly drop off days. Staff believes this amount can
be improved through better advertising and longevity of the service. The direct mail notification
used last fall proved to be extremely effective.
Holding monthly drop off days only during the warmer months also seems to be working well.
Staff continues to get occasional calls about appliances throughout the winter. However, there
have not been enough inquiries to justify the expense of year round drop off days.
Multi-Unit Recycling
Multi-unit recycling totals reported in 1999 by private haulers doubled from the previous year.
These totals come from recycling occurring in apartment buildings 13 units and more in size,
which are required to contract for recycling services.
Private haulers reported 572 tons of recyclables collected from larger apartment buildings in
1999. This amount far exceeds the City's goal of 250 pounds per unit.
Yard Waste
The City of Fridley continued operation of the yard waste transfer station in 1999. There were
no changes to the service from the previous year. Participation in the yard waste drop off was
about the same in 1999 as the previous year. Total net cash expense for this service in 1999 was
$6,381.06, which is a little less than what was budgeted for this service.
Planned Projects for 2000
Since 1999 recycling efforts were so successful, very little change is proposed for 2000. No
changes are proposed to the curbside service as we continue into the second year of a three-year
contract with BFI. In Mar�h 2000, however, BFI will be conducting a Food Drive in Fridley
during curbside recycling collections the week of March 20-23. This community service was a
special event they volunteered to provide during the RFP process.
Staff is currently negotiating the terms of an agreement to add electronic items to the list of items
accepted at monthly drop off days in 2000. If this endeavor is successful, Fridley will be the first
City in the metro area to add this service.
In 2000, staff also plans to maintain interesting�current recycling information on the City's
web site.
Anoka County Contract #900239-00
AGREEVIENT FOR RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
THIS AGREEVIENT made and entered into on the 25th day of January, 2000,
notwithstanding the date of the signatures of the parties, between the COUNTY OF ANOKA,
State of Minnesota, hereinafter refened to as the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF FRIDLEY,
hereinafter referred to as the "MUNICIPALITY".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Anoka County has received $792,776 in funding from the Solid Waste
Management Coordinating Board and the State of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115A.557
(hereinafter "SCORE funds"); and
WHEREAS, the County wishes to assist the Municipality in meeting recycling goals
established by the Anoka County Boazd of Commissioners by providing said SCORE funds to
cities and townships in the County for solid waste recycling programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation between the
County and the Municipality to implement solid waste recycling programs in the
Municipality.
2. TER�1. The term of this Agreement is from January 1, 2000 through December 31,
2000, unless earlier ternunated as provided herein.
3. DEFINITIONS.
a. "Problem material" shall have the meaning set forth in Minn. Stat. § 115A.03,
subdivision 24a.
b. "Multi-unit households" means households within apartment complexes,
condominiums, townhomes, mobile homes and senior housing complexes.
c. "Opportunity to recycle" means providing recycling and curbside pickup or
collection centers for recyclable materials as required by Minn. Stat. § 115A.552.
d. "Recycling" means the process of coll�cting and preparing recyclable materials
and reusing the materials in their original form or using them in manufacturing
processes that do not cause the destruction of recyclable materials in a manner that
precludes further use.
e. "Recyclable materials" means materials that aze separated from mixed municipal
solid waste for the purpose of recycling, including paper, glass, plastics, metals,
fluorescent lamps, major appliances and vehicle batteries.
f. Refuse derived fuel or other material that is destroyed by incineration is not a
recyclable material.
. •
�. "Yard waste" shall have the meanin'set forth in Minn. Stat. § 11�A.931.
4. PROGRAM• The Municipality shall develop and implement a residentao� of 2 SO�e
recyc lina pr oj r a m a d e q u a t e t o meet the Municipality's annual recycling �
tons of recyclable materials as estc b1�i�sazee deli heredot proc ssors�or end mlarketslfor sure
that the recyclable materials colle
recycling.
a. The Municipal recycling pro�ram shall include the following components:
i. Each household (in�unit ato recl cle ahleast folur broad types of materials,
shall have the oppo y Y
such as paper, glass, plastic, metal and textiles.
ii. The recyclina program shall be operated in compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
iii. The Municipality shall implement a public information program that
contains at least the following components:
(1) One promotion is to be mailed to each household focused
exclusively on the Municipality's recycling program;
(2) One promotion advertising recycling opportunities available for
• residents is to be included in the Municipality's newsletter or local
newspaper; and
(3) Two community presentations are to be given on recyclin�.
The public information components listed above must promote the focused
recyclable material of the year as specified by the County. The County
will provide the Municipality with background material on the focused
recyclable material of the yeaz.
iv. The Municipality, on an onaoing basis, shall identify new residents and
provide detailed information on the recycling opportunities available to
these new residents.
b. If the iVlunicipality's recycling projram did not achieve the Municipality's
recycling goals as established by the County for the prior calendar year, the
Municipality shall prepare and submit to the County by Nlarch 31, 2000, a plan
acceptable to County that is designed to achieve the recycling goals set forth in
this Agreement.
5, REPORTING. The Municipality shall submit the following reports semiannually to the
County no later than July 20, 2000 and January 20, 2001:
a, An accounting of the amount of waste which has been recycled as a result of the
Municipality's activities and the efforts of other community programs, redemption
centers and drop-off centers. For recycling programs, the Municipality shall
certify the number of tons of each recyclab�ea erial whi h has been markelt de For
and the number of tons of each recyclable
recycling programs run by other persons or entities, the Municipality shall also
provide documentation on forms provided by the County showing the tons of
materials that were recycled by thek e ndeP ed TeCOfdS dOCUmoent ng the other
programs. The Municipality shall p
disposition of all recyclable materials collected pursuant to this agreement. The
2
50
Nlunicipality shall also report the number of cubic yazds or tons of yard waste
collected for composting or landspreading, together with a description of the
methodology used for calculations. Any other material removed from the waste
stream by the Municipality, i.e. tires and used oil, shall also be reported
sepazately.
b. Information regazding any revenue received from sources other than the County
for the Municipality's recycling programs.
c. Copies of all promotional materials that have been prepared by the Municipality
during the term of this Agreement to promote its recycling programs.
The Municipality agrees to furnish the County with additional reports in form and at
frequencies requested by the County for financial evaluation, program management
purposes, and reporting to the State of Minnesota.
6. BILLING AND PAYMENT PROCEDURE. The Municipality shall submit itemized
invoices semiannually to the County for abatement activities no later than July 20, 2000
and January 20, 2001. .Costs not billed by January 20, 2001 will not be eligible for
fundin�. The invoices shall be paid in accordance with standazd County procedures,
subject to the approval of the Anoka County Boazd of Commissioners.
7. ELIGIBILITY FOR FLTNDS. The Municipality is entitled to receive reimbursement for
eligible expenses, less revenues or other reimbursement received, for eligible activities up
to the project maximum as computed below> which shall not exceed $75,218.56. The
project maximum for eligible expenses shall be computed as follows:
a. A base amount of $10,000.00 for recycling activities only; and
b. $5.79 per household for recycling activities only.
8. RECORDS. The Municipality shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in
accordance with requirements of the County and the State of Minnesota. The
Municipality shall maintain strict accountability of all funds and maintain records of all
receipts and disbursements. Such records and accounts shall be maintained in a form
which will pernut the tracing of funds and program income to fnal expenditure. The
Municipality shall maintain records sufficient to reflect that all funds received under this
Agreement were expended in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 115A.557, subd. 2, for
residential solid waste recycling puiposes. The Municipality shall also maintain records
of the quantities of materials recycled. All records and accounts shall be retained as
provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than five years from the last receipt
of payment from the County pursuant to this Agreement.
9. AUDIT. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, the Municipality shall allow the County or
other persons or agencies authorized by the County, and the State of Minnesota, including
the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor, access to the records of the Municipality at
reasonable hours, including all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures
_3
51
and practices of the Municipality relevant to the subject matter of the Agreement, for
purposes of audit. In addition, the County shall have access to the project site(s), if any,
at reasonable hours.
10. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
a. In perfornung the provisions of this Aareement, both parties agree to comply with
all applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or
standazds established by any agency or special �overnmental unit which aze now
or hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to performance of the provisions of
this Agreement. In addition, the Municipality shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the State of Minnesota for the use of SCORE funds provided to
the Municipality by the County under this Aareement.
b. No person shall illegally, on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, sex,
marital status, public assistance status, sexual preference, handicap, age or
national oriain, be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to unlawful discrimination under
any program, service or activity hereunder. The Municipality agrees to take
affirmative action so that applicants and employees are treated equally with
respect to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment,
layoff, termination, selection for training, rates of pay, and other forms of
compensation.
c. The Municipality shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontracts and
shall ensure that the subcontractors perform fully the terms of the subcontract.
The Aareement between the Municipality and a subcontractor shall obligate the
subcontractor to comply fully with the terms of this Agreement.
d. The Municipality agrees that the Municipality's employees and subcontractor's
employees who provide services under this agreement and who fall within any job
classiiication established and published by the Minnesota Department of Labor &
Industry shall be paid, at a minimum, the prevailing wages rates as certified by
said Department.
e. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement is contained herein and that
this Agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and negotiations
between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof.
f. Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of this
Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly
signed by the parties.
g. Contracts let and purchases made under this Agreement shall be made by the
Municipalify in conformance with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the
Municipality.
4
52
h. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any paragraph, section,
subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ab eement is for any reason held to
be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining portion of this
Agreement.
Nothing in this �Agreement shall be construed as creating the relationship of co-
partners, joint venturers, or an association between the County and Municipality,
nor shall the Municipality, its employees, agents or representatives be considered
employees, agents, or representatives of the County for any purpose.
11. PUBLICATION. The Municipality shall acknowledge the �nancial assistance of the
County on all promotional materials, reports and publications relating to the activities
funded under this Agreement, by including the following acknowledgement: "Funded by
the Anoka County Board of Commissioners and State SCORE funds (Select Committee
on Recycling and the Environment).
12. INDEVINIFICATION. The County agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the
Municipality harmless from all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or
character, including the cost of defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of its
public offcials, officers, agents, employees, and contractors relating to activities
performed by the County under this Agreement.
The Municipality agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the County harmless from all
claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of
defense thereof, resulting from the acts or omissions of its public officials, officers,
agents, employees, and contractors relatinD to activities performed by the Municipality
under this Agreement.
The provisions of this subdivision shall survive the termination or expiration of the term
of this Agreement.
13. TER�'�IINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written agreement of
the parties or by either party, with or without cause, by giving not less than seven (7) days
written notice, delivered by mail or in person to the other party, specifying the date of
termination. If this Agreement is terminated, assets acquired in whole or in part with
funds provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the Municipality so long as
said assets are used by the Municipality for the purpose of a landfill abatement program
approved by the County.
5
53
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto set their hands as of the dates
first written above:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
By:
Municipality's Clerk
Date:
Approved as to form and legality:
I:\CNATCYIPCMLOW-TECMRECYC[.II�I�COMRACT�RECYCOO.MRG
6
54
COUNTY OF ANOKA
By:
Dan Erhart, Chairman
Anoka County Board of Commissioners
Date:
ATTEST:
John "Jay" McLinden
County Administrator
Date:
Approved as to form and legality:
Assistant County Attorney
� AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
CxiY OF
FRIDLEY
To: Wiliiam W. Burns, City Manager �,�'� �
From: Rose M. Griep, Special Projects Coordinator
CC: David H. Sallman, Director of Public Safety
Date: 03/03/00
Re: Contracted Services Agreement
Attached is a copy of the "Agreement for Services Between Anoka County Community
Corrections and the City of Fridley". This document outlines the services that the City of
Fridley will provide. (Diversion Hearings are scheduled for youth that are generally first time
offenders committing either status offenses or minor criminal offenses. Rather than creating
a criminal record, youth are given an opportunity to "redeem" themselves by meeting the
criteria outlined at a diversion hearing. Typical consequences include school attendance,
community service work, restitution etc.)
In addition, Fritz Knaak has reviewed the rest of the contract which outlines, compensation,
term of contract and other areas. He advised that he saw no areas of concem as long as the
terms were agreeable with us as service providers.
The contract runs from March-15, 2000 to March 14, 2001 and provides for $21,822 worth of
compensation in retum for the provision of diversion hearing services. This amounts to
approximately 20 hours a week or a total of 1040 hours. The funds are part of a Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant the County received.
Staff recommends approval of this contract.
55
I ,�:t1: M =
TO
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
.. �� B�TWEEN ANOKA COUNTY CONIl�IUNI'Tv-CORRECTIONS
— . • . AND CTTY OF FRIDLEY'�
The City ("Project Safety Net") a�ees to provide diversion hearings to youth in southern
Anoka County that have been referred to Anoka County for truancy, petty offenses, and
delinquencies, including, but not limited to, shoplifting, curfew, and runaway. These youth will be
referred to and screened by Anoka County Community Coaections. Project Safety Net will provide
training� coordinadon, hearings, dictation of hearings, and follow-up services as part of this
Agreement. �
GOALS:
1. Project Safety Net will receive referrals of identified youth from either the Anoka
County Community Corrections Department or the Anoka County Attorney's Office who have been
referred for either truancy, petty offenses, or minor delinquency.
The delinquencies referred to in this A�reement will consist of shoplifting, curfew,
and cunaway violations unless otherwise a�eed by parties in this A�reement, including the Anoka
County Attorney's Office.
2. Project S afety Net will recruit, screen, and select staff needed to conduct the hearings
a�reed upon in this A�reement. �
3. The hearing officers selected for this pro�ram will receive the necessary training
through Project Safety Net, Anoka County Community Corrections, and the A.noka County
Attorney's O�ce. The training will include, but not be limited to, hearing officer procedures,
interview techniques, referral process, and follow-up services. The training will be held at sites
a�reeable to both Project Safery Net and Anoka County Community Corrections.
4. Project Safety Net staff will, in designated cases, do follow-up services as needed to
facilitate compliance with the agreement between the youch and hearing ofFcer, including, but not
limited to, improved school attendance, community service, letters of apology, restitution, program
referral, family interventions, and counseling. The hearing will set out specific actions to improve
the youth's school attendance and behaviors. The hearing o�cer will also assist parents in the
identification and selection of appropriate community and/or school resources that are needed to
address issues that were discussed in the hearing.
Exhibit A
-1-
��
� S. Project Safety Net, in consultation with staff from the Anoka County Community
Corrections Department, will file all required reporting forms with the Corrections Depamnent with
regard to cases they have had contact with. �
6. Project Safety Net staff, in conjunction with Anoka County Community Corrections
and� the Anoka�-County Attorney's O�ce, will develop and �naintain records on the hearing
conducted by Project Safety Net and provide data required by� rhe Conections Department or the
Attorney's Office. �
mkdlcontract\1999�fridley.exa
Exhibit A
-2- -
57
A
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
C�TY OF
FRIDLEY
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ��� PW00-026
�
FROM: John G. Flora, Public Works Director
Jon H. Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE: March 6, 2000
SUBJECT: Sanitary and Storm Sewer Lining Project No. 329
On Thursday, February 17, 2000, four bids were opened for the Sanitary and Storm Sewer Lining Project No.
329. The low bid was submitted by Lametti & Sons, Inc. of Hugo, MN, in the amount of $201,515. The 2000
budget has $240,000 identified for sanitary and storm sewer lining.
Recommend City Council receive the bids and award the contract for the Sanitary and Storm Sewer Lining
Project No. 329 to Lametti & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $201,515.
JHH/JGF:cz
Attachment
�•�
February 29, 2000
Page 2
BID FOR PROPOSALS
SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINING PROJECT NO. 329
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000,10:00 A.M.
� ,� �,�c'� � � � �,��� r z � �� ������6�€�� _ k� ��`'+.�����o� s� k� ia�c �S�' �a* ��r- " �, ,� ... ,. � � 3
''� ^��z4s�� ° ���� �� � � �� � 4 � 3 .� � ,�Z. r� irg�y..'� � � �'s� �
� �� '��fi1�H0�.L� :�� '� „ ., . :� ;$�}��i�ir.�;� „sa�a`...�.;����°.,<F�,`.� _.� F ..v«' .'.��'. , �t� � > ':a � {
4 ,w:
Lametti & Sons Inc 5% $163,409 $38,106 $201,515
16028 Forest Blvd No -
Hugo MN 55038
Insituform Technologies USA Inc C&A Insurance $188,150 $37,584 $225,734
17988 Edison Ave
Chesterfield MO 63005
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal Inc. 5% $191,634 $63,162 $254,796
3940 Louisiana Ave S
St Louis Pazk MN 55426
Municipal Pipe Tool Co. Inc. 5% $288,446 $39,411 $327,857
515 Sth St
HudsonIA 50643
59
0
5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
BUDGET 2001
City of Fridley
State of Minnesota
- Sewer Capital Improvements
2000
*' Reline or repair 1,488 feet (10'CMP) -
from Lucia Lane to Mississippi. 90,000 .
SCADA Upgrade - 52nd Lift Station. 20,000
2001
' Reline or Repair 635 feet (24'ABS) pipe under
railroad tracks.
SCADA Ugrade - Georgetown lift station.
2002
Rebuild Locke Lake lift station.
SCADA upgrade Locke Lake lift station.
** Reline sanitary line�on Hackman easement -
300 feet south to Old Central.
• �
Total
Total
�
� ���
80,000
25,000
0
S 1��
60,000
25,000
90,000
Totai S 1�75.000
5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
BUDGET 2001
Clty of Fridley
State of Minnesota
Storm Capital improvements
2000
Reline 48 in. strom sewer on East Blvd
Old Central from 73rd north to Onandago.
2001
Reline 30 in. storm sewer HWY 65 Service Dr
(Fireside south 750 ft).
Oak Glen Creek - erosion controi.
' Reline 315 ft(15' RCP) storm sewer
Bennett Dr, Madison to Jefferson.
Springbrook Creek Bank stabilization
East of East River Road.
2002
61
Total
150,000
0
S1�
100,000
50,000
0
Total S 150�.000
50,000
75,000
_ _. _0
Total S 1�
�
� �
O �
�
� 4
V �
�
Z
Z
� I
W
3N
W M
N
OZ
��
�p^
aa
�
�
a
�
C
'c
J
�
Z
} 0
W �
Y � a d
c �
a � � �
¢
� � � �
� � �
v� in o
�•1
� _"__ —. _'.. J v ^.�
� � ,' ����rl , .
• •
. ._.., °.3 _ �
i°•z
a�s
�
G^ ' , %v�+� s� CF.pilU1LAYC
�`
��' _ �.�.� ,—
a
�
U
o ,
— o
�
`}
� �
�,��
TM�
I �1 , eRO01IYlEM OR
I
l oMUSr a►_-
CBRfIK AVE
��
��
62
i
`; � � �
__. - � . __ . y
_^ � .� -r � ��# �
� x� •��
�� �� 2x �p5��
�s �� �i sa�I
� �
���� H
� ��.�' �
� N �
����� ���� Z.�-� ��
�� � �3's 3 $
�q� � �
$�b� �
�� a
I �
N
�
ry
� �
� N
�
0
�
. �
�
�
eeirtnK �ure
��
;, ocuw000 a� —'—
� --- _ _
rH as
TARqt ii
�I N
_ :� �
�
€, °
�
��
J
aaaa�s i �y
��� I �
I ' �
6
I I �� o
1 }
� C
I �
� � rv
i �
a
�
e
�
Z
�
�
� �
O W
J
� Q
V �
z
z
W
3 °`
w "�
N M
O Z
�G
�o
�a
�
Z
�
}
W
Y
d
a
�
.�'
J
u�i 3
.g Z
� °
� �� y
��
� m �'
�
� U �
.�r y
� V �
� • '
� 3
���� =-
�L
� � i7
8�.
� �
� �
�� p'�
�qg��
$���
� i
� � i
z � �
� ,�� ;'
�� $� �� ���'
a
`7�g�
> Z�r
VI W � ���
� ;
�
�
i
9�
�
��
o,
e
w+ w
_l; � i_� i � I i 'e.o : � I
i I� �( I �I-�I 1� I.�!%� ���` i� �
C-l_�
f
a
0
c
N
�
O
N
�
N
O
�
_
a
.Y
a
0
�
�
A
�
�
a
a`
<
a
v
�
m
P
�
�
�
�
N
�
�
a
ii
E
N
2
O
T
9
� �
� �
�
� O
U`
��
i
�
��
c�
z
z
�
3 °'
W N
N M
�a°
Z
� �
W
00
aa
�
�
Q
�
�
.�
J
N
Z
�- m �
Y � o �
Q Q� L
3 c
� � �
� � � rn
� � �
. \ � ,
, � S
�
, : _. - ��--' =
i ` �
�!
n'
: �
� � ��
� as
�� �� ��a ��
i: 3� �! �..
,_�
�`�� ' $
$ �
� g
�a�§� ••�� �,
�����' � �'s ��^ � �
a q 9! gi �t 3 8
����� �
� ��� �
�u .�"
,.
� W��� �
� �' �
� . � _ � �r,y . .. _.
O � ` ` "�
� ~�
�
1
�-,_Il� I
�
�
QT7 OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY CO,UNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
William W. Burns, City Manager �%��
John G. Flora, Public Works Director
Jon H. Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director
March 6, 2000
Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter Project No. 330
PW00-027
On Wednesday, February 23, 2000, bids were opened for the Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and Gutter Project
No. 330.
Specifcations were sent to 11 contractors and seven bids were received. The low bid was submitted by Ron
Kassa Construction of Elko, MN, in the amount of $54,537.50. The 2000 project includes remedial sidewalk
and curb repair and replacement in the City rather due to utility repairs or driveway entrance permits.
Quantities are estimated based on past years need plus work projected for 2000.
Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the contract for the Miscellaneous Concrete Curb and
Gutter Project No. 330 to Ron Kassa Construction in the amount of $54,537.50.
JHH/JGF:cz
Attachment
65
BID FOR PROPOSALS
MISCEL CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER & SIDEWALK PROJECT NO. 330
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2000,10:00 A.M.
� . _.
� � ��
�„��
�:
� ��\
Ron Kaasa Construction American Institute $54,537.50
6005 250'" East Architects
Elko MN 55020
Ti-Zack Concrete Granite Re, Inc $55,925.00
Rt 2 Box 182
Le Center MN 56057
Landmark Concrete American Institute $56,000.00
18600 Ulysses Ave NE Architects
East Bethal MN 55011
Schmitt Curb American Institute $58,875.00
709 P 10 Drive Architects
Wailuku HI 96793
Curb Masters Inc Capital Indemnity $69,125.00
500 West Polar Street
Stillwater MN 55082
Gunderson Bros Capital Indemnity $73,500.00
2325 Snelling
Minneapolis MN 55404
Standard Sidewalk Inc Granite Re, Inc. $78,500.00
29635 Neal Ave
Lindstrom MN 55045-9444
Nadeau Utility Inc NO BID
20005 Highway 81
Maple Grove MN 55311
Gallaghers Inc NO BID
23631 Natchez Ave
Lakeville MN 55044
Independent Curb Contractors Inc NO BID
1111 Highway 25 North
Buffalo MN 55313
Task Masters NO BID
22359 MN Highway 22
Litchfield MN 55356
• •
�
f
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY C4UNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
William W. Burns, City Manage ��,�i��
John G. Flora, Public Works Director
Jon H. Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director
March 6, 2000
2000 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 2000 - 10
PW00-028
On Thursday, February 24, 2000, bids were opened for the 2000 Street Improvement (Sealcoat) Project No.
ST. 2000 - 10.
Specifications were sent to five contractors and three bids were received. The low bid was submitted by Allied
Blacktop Company of Maple Grove, MN, in the amount of $137,988.37 for area 3 in the south central portion
of the City. The 2000 budget has $180,000 identified in the Street Capital Improvement program.
Recommend the City Council receive the bids and award the contract for the 2000 Street Improvement
(Sealcoat) Project No. ST. 2000 - 10 td Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $137,988.37.
JHH/JGF:cz
Attachment
l�l ■
BID FOR PROPOSALS
STREET Il��IPROVEMENT (SEALCOA'1� PROJECT NO. ST. 2000 -10
THiJRSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000,10:00 A.M.
Allied Blacktop Co 5% CNA $137,988.37
10503 89th Ave N
Maple Grove MN 55369
Bituminous Roadways Inc 5% United Fire & $142,204.67
2825 Cedar Ave S Casualty
Minneapolis MN 55407
Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp 5% Employees $159,175.80
P O Box 1025 Mutual
St Cloud MN 56302
Manufachuers' Survey Assoc, Inc NO BID
30 Technology Park South, Ste 100
Norcross GA 30092-2912
Pearson Bros Inc � NO BID
P O Box 334
Loretto MN 55357
• :
5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
BUDGET 2001
City of Fndley
State of Minnesota
Streets Capital Improvements
2000
Beginning Balance
Revenues
Funds Available
�
Ending Balance
Interest Income
Minnesota State Aid - Construction
Total Revenues
2000 Sealcoat Program (Area 3)
2000 Street Reconstruction Program
Totai Projects
2001
Beginning Balance
Revenues ` Interest Income
Funds Available
Projects
Ending Balance
Minnesota State Aid - Construction
Total Revenues -
- 2001 Sealcoat_Program. {Area.4)
_ - ,. _ _
_ _..: . ._ .. _ _ _..: -
2001 Street Reconstrucaon Program
' Hickory SURailroad Crossing Bike Path
' TH 65 Additional Northbound & Southbound Lanes HRA
Total Projects
' New Project or Equipment
" Relocated Project or Equipment
� �
$ 4,768,098
238,405
500.000
$738,405
5,506,503
180,000 �
500,000
$680,000
$ 4,826,503
$ $4,826,503
241,325 "
100.000
$341,325
5,167,828
180,000 .
500,000 ��
100,000
0
$780,000
$ 4,387,828
ii. �.._ ..-...�-�`:- �— - ----�
�--i
O Q �
I �
�
� � ��/�
O � VJ
N �
���
� ...�:F��_
.� �
:zO ��
� � .y:.
�
�
; I�
i
,�
�
�� ,'�
�
��
E SERV�CE Ofi e�KV�cE or+
IRD�i_� �--�
I ` ! I p, �
� = 9►OANOBE _ �', —'�� a�" � � --�� �\ 1
( �. �
_ � � � �� j \� ,
I '� �_s �I - ��� I
� � ��
- �w w��ora+ oA ,
' -- - -- - � i
� , 'I
�� � I _ :�
�
��
E
a
°�
P9
a
°s
;
�
;
a
�
�
�
B
�
�
�
�
�
g
�
�
W
�
C
N
�
�
�
S
�
�
�
CtTY OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
WII.,LIAM W. BURNS, CITY
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MILEAGE RATE CHANGE - 2000
DATE: February 29, 2000
The Internal Revenue Service has made the decision to increase the mileage rate from $0.31
per mile to $0.325 for 2000.
The attached resolution changes the City of Fridley's mileage rate to that of the current IRS
rate.
Based on past practice, it is my recommendation that we make this adjustment and present
this resolution to City Council for approval at the March 6, 2000 meeting.
RDP/me
Attachment
71
RESOLUTION NO. - 2000
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN MII,EAGE
REIlVIBURSEMENT RATES FOR TFIE 2000 CALENDAR YEAR
WHEREAS, there has been an increase in gas prices; and
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has increased the standazd mileage rate to $0.325 cents per
mile for 2000; and
WHEREAS, an adjustment of the standard mileage rate for the City of Fridley is warranted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley that the
following change be authorized for employees of the City of Fridley, effective March 6, 2000:
1. Standard Mileage Rate increased to $0.325 per mile.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 6Tx
DAY OF MARCH, 2000.
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
72
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
r
�
GTY OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER -!� �
��
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA, MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT
MARCH 2, 2000
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PUBLIC HEARING TO ASSESS THE
EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP BETWEEN
TIME WARNER INC. AND AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
After conferring with Attorney Fritz Knaak, staff recommends that a public hearing be established for
the March 20, 2000 City Council meeting to discuss the proposed transfer of ownership between
Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc. The attached resolution provides additional information
and establishes the public hearing date. I have also attached a copy of Mr. Knaak's letter, which also
explains our position.
73
RESOLUTION NO. - 2000
A RESOLUTION ESTABI,ISHZNG A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
MARCH 20, 2000, TO ASSESS THE EFFECT OF THE
PROPOSED TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP BETWEEN TIME WARNER
INC. AND AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley received a letter from Time Warner Cable
explaining the proposed merger between Time Warner Inc. and America
Online, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the letter was received on February 9, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the merger by acquisition or otherwise of a cable franchise
holder in the City of Fridley would constitute a transfer of the
ownership of that franchise, even if the nominal franchise holder
wo,uld remain the same; and
WHEREAS, under federal law, the City has 120 days from the date of
receiving the letter to act upon the transfer request. Failure to act
within that time serves as an approval of the transfer request; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 238.083 requires that the City either
approve the transfer request within thirty (30) days of receiving the
letter or determine the need for a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, it is common for cities to hold a public hearing at the time
of a transfer of control in order to fully assess whether the
transaction will have an adverse effect on the City's cable television
subscribers;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley intends to hold
a public hearing on March 20, 2000, to further assess the effect of
the proposed transfer on the City's cable television subscribers.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF MARCH, 2000.
ATTEST: '
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
74
NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR
MAR-02-00 THU 01�26 PM
Waync B. Holstad
Frederic W. Knaak*
John i. Lindell
John C. Po�vejsil
H. Alan Kantrud
David J. rriedmant
March 2, .2000 '
FAX N0,
� iiOLSTAD AND KNAAK, P.L.C.
Attocneys at Law
3535 Vadnais Centcr Drivc, Suitc 130
St. Paul, Minnesota 55110
Telcphone: (651) 490-9078
_ Facsimile; (651) 490-1580
Mr. Wiiliam Champa
Assis4ant to the City Manager
City of Fridley , � �
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN. 55432
(BY FACSIMILE @612.572.1287 & U.S.�MAIL)
RE: Time-Warner Cable Issues
Dear Mr. Champa:
P. 02
Of Counsel
Kamen Matev�
Also Liccnsed in
* Wisconsin & Colorado
tNcw Xork
$Bulgarin Only
This letter is intended as a follow-up to our discussions, including Tuesday's meeting,
on the issue of the Time-Warner Cabie "merger" with AOL and, in particular, how and
whether such a change would require any action Qn the part of the City and, if so, what
action could be taken and would be appropriate.
Needless to say, Time-Warner Cable has taken the general position that since it, not
AOL, �.would continue as the nominal franchisee, there is no "transfer of ownership"
sufficient to warrant a review. That, of course; involves a fairly strained reading of the
applicable law and their recognition of that fact is evidenced by fheir active participation
in the effort to obtain voluntary approvaf of the transfer by the City. �
Under both State and Federal law, the City may either agree to the. merger and transfer
within 30 days, or conduct a hearing on the question to determine whether the transfer
is, in fact, in the interest of the City's residents and cable users. The hearing must be
held within thirty days of the determination for its need (which itself, must be done within
thirty day,s of the original receipt of the notice, in this case by March 9). A decision and
recommendation by the City must, then, occur within 30 days of the hearing. �
It may well be that this merger would have no discernable impact into the foreseeable
future for Frfdley City resitlents. As I advised you, however, questions are being raised
by my counterparts and others in other areas of the country as to Whether this merger
may, in fact, have dramatic effects on the future of the cable indusEry in this country,
. generally, including issues of competitive phone and data transfer services, and the
approprjate base on which the franchise fee might be calculated if such additional
services are offered. Like much of the information industry ioday, this is an area
: � . �� . . � 75
MAR-02-00 THU 01,26 PM FAX N0. P, 03
Mr. William Champa
March 2, 2000
current{y rife with prediction and speculation any part of which, if true, could have
significant impact on the City's cable system within the next few years.
Since it is the City Council in Fridley that is entrusted with the fiduciary responsibility of
dealing with the issue of whether these matters would impaet cable users in the City, it
is my opinion that the rriost prudent action that the City could take under these
circumstance is not to immediately approve the merger, but to conduct a public hearing
on the issue and invite the representatives of Time Warner Cable to establish plainly,
and on the record, that the proposed merger will not adversely impact either cable users
or the City's franchise revenue for the duration of the current franchise.
It may very well be (indeed, one would hope) that Time Warner will provide all of the
reassurances the Council would need to proceed promptly to a recommendation.
Since Time-Warner's franchise will be up for renewa{ in the relatively near future, this
hearing would also permit both the Council and the public to address their initial
concerns on the technical questions raised by the merger without a risk that the City
and its residents would be prejudiced in any way by a decision of the City Council to
comment favorably on the merger for what remains of the current franchise, with the
intention of having a fuller, exhaustive study of many of these same issues at the time of
the renewal. �
For these reasons, again, it is my recommendation and opinion that the City of Fridley
call, and conduct a public hearing on the question of the transfer of ownership of the
franchisee and its possible impact on the City and its residents.
Please (et me know if I can respond to any other immediate questions you may have
. .�concerning this issue.
Sincer , � .
�
deric W. Knaak
ridley City Atto�ney
Cc: W. Burns
Q�
/
�
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
Name Position
Mary MIS
Trapp Technician
Non-exempt
Appointmen#
Starting
Salarv
$17.96
per hour
���
Starting
Date Replaces
Mar 7, New
2000 Position
: AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
CITY OF
FRIDLEY .
CLAIMS
9 � 998 - 92325
�:�
�
�
CIT1f OF
FRIDLEY
LICENSES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
Type of License
Lawful Gamblin�
Fridley Golden Lions
6085 Seventh Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Tree Removal and Treatment
G. L. Deden Tree Service
10101 Naples St. N.E.
Blaine, MN 55434
Tobacco Sales
Vik's Vending Co,
7664 Woodlawn Drive # 1
Ramsey, MN 55112
GAS SERVICES
Lakeland Mechanical Inc
735 Tower Dr
Medina MN 55340
0
�
Barney B. Buss
Gene L. Deden
Vikram Bhartia
Haxlan Perron
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL
Hollister Construction
33655 Washington St NE
Cambridge MN 55008 Wade Hollister
Approved By:
Police Department
Paul Lawrence
Police Department
RON NLKOWSKI
Building Official
RON JULKOWSKI
Building Official
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL
Adams Marshall Bldg & Remodeling (20186497)
24138 Verdin St
St Francis MN 55070 Marshall Adams STATE OF MINN
Barkley Wayne Construction (4043)
21240 Gypsy Valley Rd
Anoka MN 55303 Wayne Bazkley
79
Same
Fees:
Request
Waiver
$ 40.00
N/A
Shorewood
Restaurant
is already
licensed.
Type of License � Approved By:
GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL (CONT.)
Best Built Construction (20069845)
2308 Main St NW
Coon Rapids MN 55448 Fred Olson Same
Creative Homes Realty (20205186)
4616 5 St NE
Columbia Heights MN 55421 Tim Riznick
Foy Tim Exteriors LTD (20046999)
40677 Heningway Ave •
North Branch MN 55056 Tim Foy
Jackson Tom Construction (20192858)
2066 Cornell Dr
Mounds View MN 55112 Tom Jackson
New View Construction Inc
1919 Broadway St NE
Minneapolis NIN 55413
Osborne Enterprises (20169386)
5869 Hackmann Ave NE
Fridley MN 55432
HEATING
NS/I Mechanical Contracting
2300 Tenitorial Rd
St Paul MN 55114
Whitetail Heating & Cooling
29692 Pine Oak Lane NW
Isanti MN 55040
PLUMBING
Lakeland Mechanical Inc
73 5 Tower Dr
Medina MN 55340
Same
Same
Same
John Ludwig Same
John Osborne Same
RON JULKOWSKI
Frank Oslund Building O�cial
Mark Hoxmeier Same
Harlan Perron
:1
STATE OF MINN
Fees:
�
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
ESTIMATES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
Holstad and Knaak, P.L.C.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of February, 2000 ...................................................... $ 5,000.00
Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered
301 Fridley Plaza Office Building
6401 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432-4381
Services Rendered as City Prosecuting
Attorney for the Month of December, 1999 .
:
.................................. $ 17,472.80
r
L
Clllf OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
MARCH 6, 2000
WILLIAM W. B URNS, CITY MANAGER �6/
��
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT A SPENDING PLANFOR
THE EXCESS POLICE PENSION RESID UAL ASSETS
DATE: February 29, 2000
During 1999, the Governor signed into law Chapter 222 Laws of Minnesota, formerly Senate
File 319, the Omnibus Pension bill. Article 4 of that law allowed the merger of 441oca1
consolidated police and fire accounts that had been administered by PERA. The Fridley Police
Pension Fund was one of the accounts that have been administered by PERA.
The legislation as you can imagine took a considerable amount of time to develop and to work
through the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement. After a long torturous process
the bill did pass.
The law allowed each of the 441ocal pension plans the opportunity to merge with PERA or to
retain their private status and be managed by PERA. In our case, as in almost all cases, the local
plan was merged into PERA. As part of the work done for the legislation, a special actuarial
study was done on each of the local plans to determine whether a surplus or shortage existed in
each fund. The results of the Fridley Police Pension Plan indicated the Fridley plan was one of
the better managed local plans and over the past number of years had accumulated an actuarial
fund surplus. This surplus developed over the years as a result of higher than expected
investment performance and also some state mandated actuarial requirements.
As a result of the actuarial study, it was determined that the City of Fridley Police Pension Plan
is over funded by approximately $2,100,000. The new law allows the over funded plans to be
refunded back to the city only after a Public Hearing is held and a resolution passed as to how
the money is to be used. The stipulations related to the refund are that the money must be used
for a Police/Public Safety related activity and that the funds must be segregated and audited on
an annual basis. After the public hearing and the passage of the resolution, a certified copy of
the resolution must be filed with the Office of the State Auditor. Staff is recommending that a
Public Hearing on this issue be established on Mazch 6, 2000.
RDP/me
:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL
TO W�IOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the council of the City of Fridley will hold a public hearing at the
City Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue Northeast on March 6, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. on the
question of establishing restrictive accounts for excess police pension residual assets and
adopting a plan for the expenditure of such assets.
Anyone having an interest in this matter should make their interest known at this public hearing.
Debra A. Skogen
City Clerk
Publish: February 24, 2000
March 2, 2000
:
�
r
1
/ AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
Date: 2/29/00 �, j
To: William Burns, City Manager � fic��G
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planner
RE: Appeals Commission action on VAR #99-31 M-00-36
INTRODUCTION
At the Council's January 3, 2000 meeting a motion was made to table this item until March
6, 2000.
The City of Fridley has been asked, by Spikers Grille & Beachclub, to grant a total of 4
variances to increase their parking capacity by decreasing parking stall sizes, using
narrower drive aisles, and constructing additional off-site parking stalls on the Trails End
Bass Pro Shop property.
Spikers is proposing to expand their parking capacity by constructing 22.5', rather than 25'
wide drive aisles. The petitioner is also seeking to decrease the parking stall sizes to 9' X
18', rather than the code required 10' X 20'. Additionally, the proposed new parking lot on
the Trails End property indicates the location of parking stalls within 3' of a rear yard line,
rather than the code required 5'.
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION
At the December 8, 1999 Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR
#99-31. After a lengthy discussion which included mention of the petitioners lack of
hardship, the Appeals Commission voted to recommend denial of all 4 variance requests.
� The following are the motions and vote of the Appeals Commission:
� A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the variance request to reduce
� the parking drive aisle from 25 feet to 22.5 feet. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the variance request to reduce
the parking setback from the rear lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet. The motion carried on a 3-2
vote.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the request to reduce the
parking stall size from 10 feet by 20 feet to 9 feet by 18 feet. The motion carried
unanimously.
:�
MAR—�—�0�01:35 PM SPIKERS 6127924236 ~ P.6e1
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Scott Hickock,
City of Fridley
Via fax: 612-571-1287
Patrick Pelstring,
Spikers Grille & Beachclub, (nc.
City Council Agenda Item
3/6/00
March 6, 2000
I would like to request that our variance request be withdrawn. We
understand that the staff recommendation is not in support of our
request and we would like to continue to review additional options to
expand our parking.
We understand that a future request would be treated as a new
request and will require re-submittal.
cc: Masters Civil Engineering
SPiKcra Grillc � �tach�lub
�20o Oeborn� R��d, Fridlcy. N1N 5543Z (VI2) l'�Z-421� (8Tn SpiKERS
A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the request to ailow Spikers to
meet their parking requirements off-site. The motion carried on a 3-2 vote.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
At the Council's January 3, 2000 meeting a motion was made to table this item until March
6, 2000. Tabling of this item came at the request of the petitioner to allow them time to
further explore possibilities. At this time, no further information has been presented by the
petitioner.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
City Staff recommends denial of Variance request VAR #99-31. Staff believes the petitioner
does not meet the hardship criteria, required by State Statute, to be granted a variance.
STIPULATIONS
City Staff recommends if any of these variance requests are granted that the following
stipulations be attached to approvaL
1. Code required roof-top screening be completed, on Spiker's Grille & Beachclub, prior to
the issuance of any variance app�ovals or permits for parking lot expansions /
improvements. Staff to approve roof-top screening prior to installation, and granting of
any variances is conditional upon successful completion of roof-top screening.
2. Parking lot located to south of existing building shall have code required curb and gutter
installed by May 15, 2000, or variance becomes null and void.
3. Petitioner shall record all necessary easements for cross parking arrangements with
Anoka County.
4. All ponding, grading, and storm water management changes to be approved by City
Staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
5. Temporary (RR tie) parking island in west parking lot to be removed immediately and
replaced by code required concrete island.
6. Petitioner shall immediately provide protection for the stormwater catch basin in the
north parking lot from sand stored immediately next to the catch basin.
7. Any sand plumes into stormwater pond, from inadequate storage next to stormwater
drain, shall be cleaned out.
8. Outside storage of sand, railroad ties, and other equipment shall be immediately
discontinued. Petitioner shall move these items off site or construct a code approved
storage structure.
9. Temporary sand volleyball courts will no longer be permitted in the parking areas.
Petitioner shall file a written plan, including site drawings, demonstrating that the
temporary courts will not impact their parking areas prior to any City approval of these
courts. �
10. Code required Dumpster enclosures shall be installed behind Trails End Bass Pro Shop.
1 l. Outside storage of boats, etc., shall be immediately discontinued behind Trails End Bass
Pro Shop.
12. The fire hydrant on site shall be repainted yellow. Red hydrants give an indication to the
fire department that the hydrant is old and inadequate to handle their demands.
13. The pond damageldegradation shall be corrected in accordance with the memo number
PW99-196, written by Jon Haukaas dated December 3, 1999.
:
THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 2000 MEETING PAGE 1
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF
JANUARY 3, 2000
15. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #99-31, BY i�1AUI, INC. (SPIKERS GRILLE &
BEACH CLUB), TO REDUCE THE PARKING DRIVE AISLE FROM 25 FEET TO
22.5 FEET, TO REDUCE THE PARKING SETBACK FROM THE REAR LOT
LI�'�1E FROM 5 FEET TO 3 FEET, TO REDUCE THE PARKING STALL SIZE
FROM 10 X 20 FEET TO 9 X 18 FEET, TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE
PARKING AREA. GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1200 OSBORNE ROAD N.E.
ARD 2 :
Mayor Jorgenson stated that it was her understanding that the peritioner requested to have this item
tabled to allow time to fiuther explore possibilities.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to receive the letter from Maui, Inc. (Spikers Grille & Beach
Club). Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, if the sixty-day rule requires them to take
some kind of action within the sixty days or grant an extension of up to another sixty days with some
type of action by the Council. He asked if Council should table it for thirty days to work out exactly
what they want to do in tem�s of setting a time frame.
Mr. Knaak stated that as a practical matter, if there is a waiving of the time limit on the part of an
applicant, he believed the law is clear that the applicant would be stopped from asserting the non-
existence of the waiver. There was no clearly enunciated judicial interpretation on that point. The better
course of action would be to take an affirmative step which would require an extension of time based on
the request of the applicant and that extension of time be given as required by the statute in writing to the
applicant. If there was an intention to grant a continuation of time the best way to do that under the
usual operation of the statute would be for the City to grant that and state its reason for doing so in
writing.
Councilmember Billings asked NIr. Hickok when the sixty days runs out.
Mr. Hickok stated it would run out at the end of the month.
Councilmember Billings stated that if a motion was made to table this until the first meeting in March,
they would be well within the sixty days and send a letter to the applicant advising him of the sixty-day
extension and letting him lrnow he needs to make some kind of action. The action would be to either
request another extension within that sixty days or to bring something forward.
Mr. Knaak stated that was his understanding also.
: .
THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 2000 MEETING PAGE 2
Councilmember Wolfe asked Councilmember Billings if he wanted to table it until March 6.
Councilmember Billings stated that he agreed. It would keep them within the confines of the State
Statute and place themselves in the situation that the petitioner was not granted their variances because
of inaction on their part, even though they are responding to their direct action.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to table this item until March 6 and send a letter to Maui, Inc.
(Spikers Grille & Beach Club) stating that VAR #99-31 is tabled until March 6 per their request.
Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the petitioner could come back before March 6 and ask for
reconsiderarion.
Mr. Hickok stated that was correct. At that point, they may suggest they withdraw their request to give
themselves the time they need and start fresh.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that there are still some issues. Maybe the petitioner could agree with
them to work on the things that are still outstanding including removing the railroad ties from the parking
lot.
Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Hickok what this has to do with the temporary pemut that staff gave them
for the volleyball courts.
Mr. Hickok stated that was a trial basis to see how it worked last year. The owners and staff agreed
that it was not a successful venture.
:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 1999
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #99-
31, BY MASTER CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING, INC.:
Per Section 205.14.05D.(4.)(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the parking
drive aisle from 25 feet to 2.5 feet;
Per Section 205.14.05.D.(5).O of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the parking
setback from the rear lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet;
Per Section 205.0..55 of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the parking stall size
from 10 feet by 20 feet to 9 feet by 18 feet;
To allow the expansion of the parking area on Lot 1, Block 1, A& R Addition,
generally located at 1200 Osborne Road (Spikers Grille & Beach Club)
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Beaulieau, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated that Spikers and Master Engineering are proposing to expand their
parking capacity by constructing 22.5 foot rather than 25 foot wide drive aisles. The
petitioner is also seeking to decrease the parking stall sizes to nine feet by 18 feet
rather than the code required 10 by 20 feet. Additionally, the parking stalls on the
proposed new parking lot, which would be located on the Trail's End Bass Pco Shop
site, would be within three feet of the rear yard line, rather than the code required five
feet.
Mr. Bolin stated the Code requires these parking areas to be located no closer than five
feet from any rear lot line. This provides a buffer from neighboring properties to be
large enough for screening and for drainage reasons as well. The Code also requires
that drive aisles for two-way traffic be a minimum of 25 feet in width in order to allow
adequate maneuvering for automobiles.
Mr. Bolin stated that regarding parking stalls, the Code requires parking stalls to be ten
feet wide and 20 feet in length in order to provide adequate maneuvering space for
parking and also to allow access from the vehicle once in the parking stall. There is one
small provision in the code that allows an 18 foot long parking stall provided that there is
a curb or sidewalk at the front of that stall. It is not intended for nose-to-nose parking.
With the 18 foot stall where this is a curb or sidewalk, there is some overhang of the
vehicle so it is not sticking out into the drive aisle.
Mr. Bolin stated the Code requires that on-site parking be provided for all vehicles
concerned with any use on a property to ensure that each property in Fridley is able to
::
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 2
address its own parking demands. Part of this request is to piace some parking stalis
on the Trails End Bass Pro Shop site.
Mr. Bolin stated staff has identified three potential solutions that would permanently
address Spikers' parking problems. The first possible permanent solution would be for
Spikers to acquire more property and then construct the additional parking that they
need. This would require the petitioner to conduct his own search for parcels adjacent
to his and also to negotiate purchase for that properry. The second solution would be to
construct a parking ramp that would be more common in Fridley. The third alternative
would be to master plan the entire area surrounding Spikers. This area was originally
platted so that the entire area would function as a mall. The portion of property that
Spikers was located on was envisioned to be the anchor tenant, and the periphery sites
were meant to be complementary uses to this anchor tenant. The periphery sites were
developed first, and the Spikers site was never developed and ended up going tax
forfeit. Spikers purchased this property and has since built on it. Rather than all of
these properties developing together with common parking and shared landscaping and
open space, they were all developed independently. They could revisit the parking and
landscaping and drainage for all of the sites and redistribute that open space so it works
for everybody, and that entire area functions more as a mall.
Mr. Bolin stated any of these three alternatives would be good permanent solutions and
would avoid an interim solution which the petitioner is seeking with these variances.
Mr. Bolin stated that he wanted to give a more clear picture of the size of vehicles in
relation to parking stalls and drive aisles. A Cadillac Sedan de Ville is 6 feet and 4
inches wide, and 17 feet and 3 inches long. A Jeep Cherokee is 6'/z feet wide and
slightly over 14 feet long. A Chevy extended cab shortbox truck is 19 feet long and 7
feet and 2 inches wide. A Honda Accord is 15 feet in length and 6 feet wide. A Ford
Taurus is 6 feet, 7 inches wide, and 16 %2 feet long. A GMC conversion van is 8 feet, 1
inch wide by 18 feet long. You will not be able to get the doors open in a 9-feet wide
parking stalL
Mr. Bolin stated that in the past year, Spikers was granted a variance for the height of
their sign and approval by City staff to put up some temporary sand courts in the
parking lot. The City of Fridley and City staff are very pro-business and very willing to
grant some discretionary requests. Most of the time the requests end up being a win-
win situation for both the City and for the petitioner. Staff has some concerns with the
lack of follow-through on this particular site. Staff still has several concerns and there
are several outstanding issues regarding the completion of this site.
Mr. Bolin stated one of the main concerns is the lack of rooftop screening. The Code
does require that the rooftop mechanical not be seen from any right-of-way. This has
been an issue for quite some time.
Mr. Bolin stated the sand courts in the parking lot are also a concern. Staff did give
some temporary approval last spring to try sand courts in the parking lot. Staff
approved those courts to be located in the northern parking lot, but they were
constructed in the west parking lot. In the west parking lot, there was a concrete
..
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 3
parking island removed when the petitioner put in the temporary sand courts. The sand
courts are now gone, and the petitioner only has railroad ties stacked around where the
concrete island was.
Mr. Bolin stated staff is concerned about the sand storage in the parking lot, railroad tie
storage in the south parking lot, the lack of code required curbing around the south
parking lot, and degradation to the storm water pond due to negligence of the sand
storage in the parking lot. This sand pile from the temporary courts was placed right in
front of the storm drain. This has caused problems with the pond itself. Anytime it
rains, the sand goes right into the storm drain. The City's engineering department
would like to see the pond slope re-graded back to the original specifications to smooth
out the slope and drop. The_ result of not having the code required curb and gutter on
the south parking lot has washed out quite a bit of the vegetation on the hillside, and
erosion has resulted.
Mr. Bolin stated staff has made separate recommendations for each of the four
requests. Staff recommends denial of the request to decrease the parking stall size to 9
feet by 18 feet, rather than the code required 10 feet by 20 feet. No comparable
variances have been granted in the past. The City would effectively reduce the parking
stall size in granting this request required for all commercially zoned property down to 9
feet by 18 feet. It is quite difficult for today's popular vehicles to maneuver in and out of
parking stalls that size. Commercial settings are not appropriate because of frequent
turnover. There are a couple of exceptions for the parking stall size in the code.
Industrial districts are allowed a 9-foot stall as long as it is double striped, which means
that there is a six-inch separation. At the Medtronic campus, in a redevelopment
district, the stall size was reduced to nine feet because the same group of people would
be parking there every day.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommended denial of the request to utilize a 22 '/2 foot wide
drive aisle. No comparable variances have been granted. The reduced drive aisle
widths, combined with decreased stall sizes, do not provide for adequate maneuvering.
In the past, one variance was granted to St. Phillips Church for a 22-foot wide drive
aisle for rarely used parking stalls on the edge of the parking lot only on Sundays and
some Saturdays.
Mr. Bolin stated staff is recommending denial of the request to locate parking stalls
within three feet of the rear yard line, versus the code required five feet. No comparable
variance requests have been granted, and there is not adequate space for landscaping
or drainage. There has only been two instances where the City has decreased the rear
yard parking distance. Neither were comparable. They were only used to correct
existing conditions. One is the A& W Root Beer, and the other one is Friendly
Chevrolet.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommended denial of the request to allow off-site parking on the
Trail's End Bass Pro Shop site. There have been no comparable variances and
granting of this request would effectively introduce a new standard for allowing
businesses to meet their own parking demands off-site.
.�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 4
Mr. Bolin stated that if the Planning Commission chooses to approve any of these
variance requests, staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. Code-required roof-top screening be completed on the Spikers Grille & Beach
Club building prior to the issuance of any variance approvals or permits for
parking lot expansions/improvements. Staff shall approve any roof-top screening
prior to installation, and granting of any variances is conditional upon successful
completion of roof-top screening.
2. Code-required curb and gutter shall be installed in the parking lot located to the
south of the existing building by May 15, 2000, or the variance becomes null and
void.
3. The petitioner shall record all necessary easements for cross parking
arrangements with Ar�oka County.
4. All ponding, grading, and storm water management changes shall be approved
by City staff prior to the issuance of any permits.
5. Temporary (railroad tie) parking island in west parking lot shall be removed
immediately and replaced by code-required concrete island.
6. The petitioner shall immediately provide protection for the stormwater catch basin
in the north parking lot from sand stored immediately next to the catch basin.
7. Any sand plumes into stormwater pond, from inadequate storage next to
stormwater drain, shall be cleaned out.
8. Outside storage of sand, railroad ties, and other equipment shall be immediately
discontinued. Petitioner shall move these items off site or construct a code
approved storage structure.
9. Temporary sand volleyball courts will no longer be permitted in the parking areas.
Petitioner shall file a written plan, including site drawings, demonstrating that the
temporary courts will not impact their parking areas prior to any City approval of
these courts.
10. Code-required dumpster enclosures shall be installed behind Trails End Bass
Pro Shop.
11. Outside storage of boats, etc., shall be immediately discontinued behind Trails
End Bass Pro Shop.
12. The fire hydrant on site shall be repainted yellow. Red hydrants give an
indication to the fire department that the hydrant is old and inadequate to handle
their demands.
13. The pond damage/degradation shall be corrected in accordance with the memo
number PW99-196, written by Jon Haukaas, dated December 3, 1999.
Mr. Bolin stated Spikers is proposing to have a 9 feet by 18 foot length which the code
does not allow for nose-to-nose parking in the middle row. The 18-foot length would be
acceptable on the row of parking where the cars can overhang the curb. On the Trails
End site, the 18 foot length would be fine.
Ms. Beaulieau asked if there were enough parking stalls prior to the volleyball courts.
Mr. Hickok stated that there was an agreed-upon number of stalls when the site was
developed. Without the volleyball courts, the parking situation was much better. On
certain demand days, employees were asked to park on the chiropractic office parking
91
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 5
lot at the corner to allow room for the customers to park. The sand vaileyball and
certain events cause occur them to grow beyond their site parking demands.
Mr. Tynjala asked if there is any precedent for someone asking for an off-site parking
variance.
Mr. Hickok stated that they have had situations with the Orthopedic Surgeons request to
allow 27 parking spaces off site on the Moose parking lot. It was reviewed by the
Appeals Commission and the recommendation was to deny. People would have been
crossing the street, and there would have been concerns about the proximity of the
parking to the facility. There were also concerns about putting parking demands on the
adjacent site where they were unsure of that certainty of that real estate. It did not
make it to the City Council and the petitioners decided to build a parking deck. Miller
Funeral Home had adequat� on site parking, but they have an agreement with the
church across the street in the event that they would have a funeral that has such
parking demands. Home Depot and PetsMart have cross parking arrangements,
because folks may park at Petsmart and decide to walk over to Home Depot.
Ms. Beaulieau asked if they have enough parking stalls according to code at the present
time.
Mr. Hickok stated that the code requires in the commercial district 1 stall to 150 square
feet of building. They do not have enough based on 1 to 150. The number that exists
on the site was an agreed-upon number based on assurances from the developer that
all of the space inside is not retail, and they have different parking demands than
anything the City has experienced. They did have to rely heavily on knowing what the
use like this could generate. At the time that this facility came in, they went to the
engineering manuals to show what the national study showed for a facility like this.
There are so few facilities, there was not an adequate sample size for them to have
numbers which caused them to rely on the petitioners to tell them what the demands
have been. They are finding now that the agreed-upon number is short of what they
actually needed.
Mr. Tynjala asked if the 1 to 150 was never satisfied.
Mr. Hickok stated that is correct and he should also clarify that in a situation where there
is a mixture of uses in a building for retail, there are other formulas that apply. There is
a 1- 200 for speculative use and some commercial facilities where they do not know
who the tenants are going to be.
Mr. Kuechle asked how many spaces are there currently, and how many are proposed
to be put in.
Mr. Bolin stated that they currently have 147 on site.
Mr. Hickok stated that by restriping and creating more next door would put them at 199
parking spaces.
92
_ . _-- --
�-r-�.w---�
`'� i _�F;:`� :ri('...1'�
APPERLS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 6
- ,���•
*::,�,�:€.�
Dr. Vos asked if they would get more parking spaces by using diagonal parking spaces.
Mr. Hickok stated that Pat Pelstring talked about site circulation early on. The City does
not have the benefit of one big contiguous parking lot with an obvious circulation route.
They talked about angle parking and the City felt 90 degree parking would be
appropriate. They also talked about the south parking area which initially was proof
parking. There were 30 stalls on the south end that they did not install initially, but they
had one year to install that. The angle parking was the consensus of the working group
early on, that circulation would work best if the motorist could angle in to a stall. The
engineers are showing this evening that they can increase their numbers by going to 90
degree but it has had an impact on the width that they can provide in those parking
stalls.
Mr. Kuechle asked if the req'uirement for aisle width for straight aisles was the same as
diagonaL
Mr. Hickok stated that it depends if it is one way parking or two way parking. Angled
parking generally works best with a one way circulation route. TMen with one way you
can reduce the drive aisle width to 18 feet.
The petitioner, Don Gerberding, Master Engineering, stated that he is the project
manager on the project. The site plan included in the packets was a preliminary site
plan. The final site plans he brought for any questions. Originally, the original site plan
approval of the City was for 167 stalls. The angled parking resulted in a decrease to
147 stalls. His company was hired in September to represent the owner to try to
address lingering site issues which had not been addressed. They make no pretense
that they have issues which they need to correct. Most revolve around engineering
issues. Master Engineering is a site work specialist. When they talk about the issues of
drainage and permanent solutions, Master Engineering was hired as professionals to
represent them. Tonight the owners had a business commitment out of town, so they
were unable to represent themselves.
Mr. Gerberding stated the City had a concern about traffic flow. Everyone agreed they
would try angled parking, that brought the parking number down to 147. If the ratio is 1
to 150 the requirements for that building of 29,000 square feet is 196 stalls. It has
proved out over time that 147 stalls are not enough. Master Engineering is proposing
that they can gain 18 stalls through restriping the existing. They can also gain 22 stalls
through an agreement with the neighbor. That would bring them up to 187 stalls, which
the owners feel is more than adequate. They are not requesting that the 25-foot drive
aisle be reduced to 22.5 feet, because if they were to receive a variance of 18 feet in
stall length, the drive aisles remain at 25 feet. On the Pro Bass site, as one comes
down the north side of the building to get to the back end, there would be one place
where it is less than 25 feet, but that is only one stall. A gate will be installed there.
Mr. Hickok stated that the plan is still inadequate in the area where it is 22'/z feet
between the edge of the islands.
Mr. Gerberding thanked Mr. Hickok for pointing that out.
93
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 7
Mr. Hickok stated that the point between the Bass Pro Shop site and the end of the
parking aisle is 22'/2 feet as well. Staff has stated both variances because if the
variance request for stall depth is not approved, it gives the Commission members the
options of considering a drive aisle width.
Mr. Gerberding stated that one of the ideas that they had to address is the concern
about the 20 foot length of the stall. Instead of asking for a variance request for 18 feet,
they could keep the stall at 20 feet, correspondingly reduce the drive aisle from 25 feet
to 23 feet, and give two feet up to make the stall remain at 20 feet. That way Spikers
gets the additional parking needed by restriping to 90 degrees.
Mr. Jones asked what the typical Spikers customer is and the typical vehicle they drive.
Mr. Gerberding stated that if is a younger crowd; they play volleyball and are active.
There will be a cross section of vehicles with pick-ups and smaller cars, but they have
not done any accurate studies. It is safe to say that a 20 foot stall length is a gracious
length for a stall. Parking standards across the metro area is closer to 18 feet. Some
cities and municipalities go 19 or 20 feet stalls. Twenty feet is definitely on the high
end.
Mr. Jones asked if they are going to shorter lengths and also to narrower widths.
Mr. Gerberding stated that is correct. For example, Fridley has 10-foot widths and 20-
foot lengths. Minneapolis has 8'/Z-foot widths and 18-foot lengths. Stillwater has 9-
foot width, 18-foot length. Vadnais Heights has 9-foot width, 20-foot length. St. Paul
has 9-foot widths by 18-foot lengths. It varies, 10 feet by 20 feet is the most spacious
that they deal with. Ten feet by 20 feet is real common at a Cubs Food store to open
the vehicle doors and put groceries in the car.
Mr. Barry Morgan, Master Engineers, stated that they do have a 22'/Z foot drive aisle.
In both of these areas, 18 foot stalls are allowed because there is curb parking. They
feel that is okay as well as on the north side of Trail Bass where there are 18 foot stalls
with curb so a two foot overhang is allowed.
Mr. Morgan stated that the City pointed out in the recommendation of denial that there
are several instances where they have allowed less than 25 foot drive aisles. One is
the Orthopaedic Partners Clinic as well as the church. There are some drainage issues.
The ditch that is supposed to drain Wendy's, as well as Trail Bass, is not actually
draining at this time due to the developments and sedimentation that naturally occurs.
They will address that issue of drainage by putting in a couple of catch basins and storm
sewer and getting all of that storm water runoff into the ponds that are already there.
That is where it goes anyway. They are short two feet at the rear yard line but in the
corner they are maintaining a large landscaped area. They do not necessarily feel that
there is a drainage issue between the two curb areas. They feel they can get adequate
landscaping in there with some bushes, and it will not be an issue with bumping of cars.
.,
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 8
Mr. Kuechle asked how they were going to put vegetation in there if they are proposing
a three foot wide space and that the cars wili overhang by 12 inches right and left.
Mr. Morgan stated that they are oniy requesting a setback of three feet and the space
left would be seven feet wide.
Mr. Gerberding stated that it is accomplished by the requirements of five feet on each
side.
Dr. Vos stated that all the work has been done on the west parking lot. He asked if
there was anything that could be done on the north or the south.
Mr. Morgan stated that both of those parking lots utilize the maximum efficiency for a
parking lot.
Dr. Vos asked if you need a barrier if you park against a building. The south side of the
building is not protected against the parking lot.
Mr. Gerberding stated that is correct. The installation of the concrete curb around the
existing south parking areas would correct that.
Mr. Gerberding asked if there were any questions on the 9-foot stall width for the off site
parking.
Mr. Kuechle stated that this request is precipitated by the feeling for demand for more
parking. What percentage of the time is this occurring? If they complied with theten
foot stall, they would lose four spots and three more on the other side. Are the seven
stalls worth inconveniencing the customers?
Mr. Gerberding stated that if they were going to go to theten foot stalls, they would lose
six stalls, rather than gaining 18 stalls they would only gain 12. The peak times are
evenings and on the weekends. The owners feel that 187 stalls is going to be adequate
to meet their business needs. Spikers has been pro-active in its approach for the off
site parking to make cross arrangements with the neighbors. Staff stated that no
previous variances for this arrangement have been granted in the recommendations.
The Code states that if parking spaces are inadequate, the City may require that
additional off street parking be provided. They feel their proposal is different than the
Orthopaedic Clinic. The clinic was looking at sites across a busy street, and it was not
contiguous to the existing parking. Proximity and safety are not an issue here.
;
�
Mr. Jones asked what it mea'nt when they mentioned that the owner believes that this is
adequate to meet the parking needs at the present time.
Mr. Gerberding stated that he intended no inference with that. Under their current
operations, it will satisfy their parking needs.
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 9
Mr. Jones stated that originally they came up with a parking lot that would meet their
needs and then they felt it was necessary to reduce the size to put in volleyball courts.
What is changing to drive the need and is there going to be another request?
Mr. Gerberding stated that he does not know of any anticipated business changes
which would change their parking requirements. Sand volleyball courts took away
needed parking and they realize that. They received bids for the rooftop screening, the
sand courts are gone, and railroad ties have been stacked on the south side of the
building. The sand is still there but will be gone soon. Curb and gutter on the south lot
is proposed to be taken care, of at the same time that the curbing be done for
reconstruction. Staff has recommended it should be done by May 15, but they are
suggesting that June 15 is more realistic based on when the curb goes in and spring
schedules may make it difficult. There are finro other stipulations that he does not feel
he could speak for the owner. Master Engineering could talk with the owner for a
response prior to the City Council meeting regarding stipulation 9. All of the stipulations
are part of what Master Engineering has been charged to correct.
Mr. Tynjala asked when there are spillover parking problems, where do people park
now?
Mr. Gerberding stated that they park wherever.
Dr. Vos stated that there is a sign in the north end of the parking lot that states that they
could park in the medical dental building lot after 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Morgan stated that it is a similar arrangement to Trail Bass for a certain time the lot
could be used.
Mr. Tynjala asked if that involved walking across a busy street.
Dr. Vos stated that it is just in the north parking lot, and they would not have to walk
across the street.
Mr. Hickok stated that Spikers also has administrative offices in the office building to the
north. It is part of the arrangement that goes along with their administrative offices to
the north. It is different because there are stalls they are entitled to regarding lease
space. Spikers' employees park in the chiropractic lot on a regular basis because they
want to keep the parking spaces free for customers. Staff is uncertain of the taking out
of the internal volleyball courts and replacing those with six golf simulators. This would
also have an impact because you can play a golf simulator with a foursome and this
replaces two sand volleyball courts inside. This will increase the numbers potentially, of
overlapping customers that are utilizing the site for a different purpose inside the
building.
Mr. Morgan stated that they have talked to the owner regarding the golf simulators. Mr.
Gerberding did bring it up that they feel that it is not going to change the overall use of
the facility. The owners told them that they will install two golf simulators, instead of six.
Two would provide similar traffic, but the one sand volleyball court would not.
� •
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 10
Mr. Kuechle asked Mr. Hickok about the last variance with the expansion of the parking
lot. If the parking requirements are being met as originally stated, where is the
problem? If it is not necessary to meet the legal requirement, why could they not just
make the agreement with Trails End for parking.
Mr. Hickok stated that the section of the code states that the City can require additional
parking if deemed necessary for on-site parking. They are experiencing that the
demands go beyond this site. This is an identical situation to (except for crossing the
street) to the Orthopaedic Surgeon folks that were displacing 27 parking spaces by
building a new surgery center on their ground floor and putting them off someplace else.
The demands are quite obvious that the initial numbers are not adequate to meet the
demands on the site. If they cannot address their on-site problems, they need to ask if
they could have it off site and recognize it as an approved thing by the City.
Ms. Beaulieau asked Mr. Hickok if the 187 stalls would meet the requirement anyway
with the variance.
Mr. Hickok stated that it is a reduction in the overall number. They need to find the
space on site. They should have stuck with the 150 to 1 and required it on site.
Mr. Tynjala asked if Spikers is prohibited from entering into agreements with adjacent
landowners to provide additional parking.
Mr. Hickok stated that the language in the ordinance talks about meeting the parking
demands on site. One caveat in the code states: "If you have an R-3 residential site
next to you, there is a special use provision that would allow you to enter into a special
use permit with an adjacent R-3 property owner." This is one provision that allows
parking off site.
Mr. Morgan stated that the 187 stalls does not include the current arrangement they
have with their tenant that they lease their office space from. He does not have the
exact number of parking stalls there, but he believes that it is a number of 20. That will
then put the total number at 207. They thought of working with Trails Bass and having
them say that they want to develop a parking lot, and after that lot is developed, go
ahead and work out an agreement with Spikers. Spikers thought it was in their best
interest to take the pro-active approach to try to solve their parking needs.
Mr. Hickok stated that he befieves the way the discussion went is that the question was
asked, what would preclude Bass Pro Shop from just doing this as though it was their
own project? If the cross parking or spillover is causing demands on adjacent lot, he
concurs with the owners of Spikers to address their problem. If it was simply a matter of
developing the Bass Pro Shop site, that is an issue that is no different than where they
are at right now. They are parking in adjacent parking lots, they are not meeting their
own demands, and then they have gone to a lot of expense to build a parking lot.
Unless the Commission decides that it is appropriate, they would not be able to use it
legally. There is a difference between their cross parking arrangements on a site where
they have an office or where they are piggybacking on another use's parking.
97
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 11
Mr. Tynjala asked at what point do they know that the property owner is satisfied when
the parking demands.differ during separate times of the year.
Mr. Hickok stated that it is very rare that the City accepts anything less than the 1- 150
in a commercial area. They do not have situations where they have developed a 1-
150 to begin with and then it still fails. They are comfortable with that ratio. The original
numbers are not the numbers that work for this site.
Mr. Kuechle asked Mr. Hickok if they went with the 150 ratio, would they be required to
place 196 spots. '
Ms. Beaulieau asked if they could place 150 on site, or would that include the office
parking space?
Mr. Hickok stated that 193.33 is the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there has been a lot of problems or complaints about overflow.
Mr. Hickok stated that they have heard comments about overflow, and parking in
general. Some comments are about the first cars in parking haphazardly causing the
rest of the site to not be able to park to capacity and circulation to work properly. Part of
that is related to the drive-through ability. If the first car overlaps the center line,
everyone lines up with them causing the problem. There has been some comment
about the spillover and Spikers customers walking through the parking lots and over to
the building. Not necessarily complaints, but inquiries.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any clients who addressed this problem.
Mr. Morgan stated that some issues probably relate to when the volleyball courts were
there. Unfortunately all they can do about cars parking haphazardly is paint the stalls
and hope that they park within the stalls.
Mr. Gerberding stated that there is an option that they can do to encourage people to
take full use of the depth of the stall and that would be to put up expansions and run
some type of visual separation between the stalls.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN KUECHLE DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:58 P.M.
Mr. Tynjala stated that the parking stall and width issues have to be considered together
with the other requests separated from the discussion.
Ms. Beaulieau stated that she thought she heard the variance request to go to 9 feet by
20 feet amended with the 23 foot wide aisle.
.•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 12
Mr. Kuechle stated that they have the option of keeping the center one at 20 feet, and
reducing the aisle width, assuming that they can stay in the spirit of what they have
done before. In some spaces they can overhang, so they would not be too far off there.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he commends Spikers for making the effort to come in and
correct these problems and deal with some of the issues. He would recommend denial
of reducing the stall widths from nine feet to ten feet. In a place like this where the
turnover is fairly high, he would like to see the wide stall. The difference of the six
parking stalls, if they made the nine feet versus ten feet, is not enough to warrant the
inconvenience caused. He could live with reducing the center drive lengths to 18 feet
instead of 20 feet, especially if they are ten feet wide, and reduce the drive aisle width
slightly. There is not enough space if you provide 9 by 18 feet to turn around. He could
live with the side yard setback from five feet to three feet since five feet will be on the
other side. He could also live with the off site parking, even though it is not ideal.
Ms. Beaulieau stated that the biggest concern with the Orthopaedic Surgeon site was
walking across the street. The rest she feels she agrees with.
Dr. Vos stated that he is uncomfortable with all of the variance requests because he
feels they are all precedent setting. He voted for the high sign and that is about it. He
would vote "no".
Mr. Jones stated that he would vote "no" on all the variance for the same reason that
they are precedent setting. He is not convinced from what he has seen, heard, and
read that they have an overall plan and know what they are doing. They only saw a
partial parking lot. They have a number of things they said they were going to do and
they have not. They did not present any traffic flow data, or what type of cars people
drive. He is not convinced that this would meet their needs for the coming year. He
would not vote for any of these variance requests.
Mr. Tynjala stated that it is not abundantly clear to him on the off site parking that there
is a need for a variance request. If the parking has been agreed upon between
themselves to have an easement for parking, it would alleviate the overall parking
problem generally. He would be concerned about the past neglect in terms of
complying with the previous requests. He is not sure that the hardship is not simply
driven by poor planning with the sand court generating more demand than they
expected. He is also concerned about setting a precedence. He would vote "no" for the
addition, but the off site parking where they already have agreement would present no
problem.
Mr. Kuechle stated that he can understand staff's concern about the off site parking.
This tends over time to fall apart, and then it is hard to pull back and correct that
situation.
Ms. Beaulieau stated that the City is saying that there needs to be a certain number on
site. If they have enough on site, it does not preclude them from getting additional
easement to have more stalls than required off site. The variance states that they want
to fill that code requirement by going off site.
..
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 1999 PAGE 13
Mr. Kuechle stated that if they have 196 spaces, they could do it.
Dr. Vos stated that in the announcement there are only three variance requests, but in
the Staff report, there are four.
Mr. Hickok stated that there are four, which would be clarified before it gets to the City
Council, and adjacent properties will be renotified that there is a fourth.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to deny the variance request, VAR #99-
31, to reduce the parking drive aisle from 25 feet to 22.5 feet on Lot 1, Block 1, A& R
Addition, generally located at 1200 Osborne Road (Spikers Grille & Beach Club).
UPON A VOICE VOTE, VOS, JONES, KUECHLE, AND TYNJALA VOTING AYE,
BEAULIEAU VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED 4-1.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Tynjala , denial of the variance request, VAR
#99-31, to reduce the parking setback from the rear lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet on Lot
1, Block 1, A& R Addition, generally located at 1200 Osborne Road (Spikers Grille &
Beach Club.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, TYNJALA, VOS, AND JONES VOTING AYE, KUECHLE AND
BEAULIEAU VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED 3-2.
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Dr. Vos, to deny the variance request VAR #99-
31, to reduce the parking stall size from 10 feet by 20 feet to 9 feet by 18 feet on Lot 1,
Block 1, A& R Addition, generally located at 1200 Osborne Road (Spikers Grille &
Beach Club).
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Tynjala, seconded by Mr. Jones, to deny the variance request, VAR
#99-31, to allow the expansion of the parking area on Lot 1, Block 1, A& R Addition,
generally located at 1200 Osborne Road (Spikers Grille 8� Beach Club).
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MR. TYNJALA, DR. VOS, MR. JONES VOTING AYE,
CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE AND MS. BEAULIEAU VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON
KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2.
Mr. Kuechle stated that this would go to City Council on January 3, 1999.
100
i AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
TO: WILLIAM W. B URNS, CITY MANAGER ���
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOL UTION ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIVE ACCO UNTS FOR EXCESS
POLICE PENSIONRESIDUAL ASSETS AND ADOPTING A PLANFOR THE
EXPENDITURE OFSUCHASSETS
DATE: February 29, 2000
Attached is the resolution that provides the local legislation required for the disbursement of PERA
funds associated with the excess funding of the local Police Relief account to the City of Fridley.
The Public Hearing has been held in accordance with state law. This resolution, provides for a
spending plan that will be reviewed annually to insure compliance with the attached resolution.
The funds will be segregated into a`Special Revenue Fund'.
RSP/me
Attachment
101
RESOLUTION NO. _ - 2000
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIVE ACCOUNTS FOR EXCESS POLICE
PENSION RESIDUAL ASSETS AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
SUCH ASSETS
Whereas, Minnesota Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill, has made substantial
changes to public employee pensions in Minnesota, including the total merger of Fridley Police
Pension Plan; and �
Whereas, one of these changes permits the return of the excess funding from the police consolidation
account to the local jurisdiction; and
Whereas, the portion of excess funding available for retum to the City of Fridley is approximately
$2,100,000,
Whereas, the City of Fridley has lield an advertised public heari.ng on Mazch 6, 2000, at which public
hearing the proposed use of the police residual assets were discussed and a spending plan approved.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley, Minnesota, adopts the following
plan for the receipt and use of these excess fund assets.
1. The excess funding derived from the City of Fridley Police Consolidation Account
may be used for providing extended funding for all police personnel originally funded
through federal grants.
2 The excess funds may also be used to assist the Police Department in the funding of
both Capital Outlay and Information Technology areas.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 6Tx
DAY OF MARCH 2O00.
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN, CITY CLERK
102
NANCY J. JORGENSON, MAYOR
�
�
pTY OF
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2000
Date: 2/29/00 �
To: William Burns, City Manager ,�jr�f
From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Paul Bolin, Planner
RE: Appeals Commission action on VAR #00-02 M-00-37
INTRODUCTION
George Sroka, petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback
from 5' to 2' in order to construct an 11'4" wide by 28' long garage expansion at 1363 53�d
Avenue NE. The home is a walkout style built on a steep slope and constructing a"two
deep" garage expansion would not be feasible. The slopes also prevent the petitioner from
constructing a detached garage in the rear yard.
The petitioner had originally submitted a variance request down to 2'6", for the side yard
setback, which was within previously granted dimensions. After the staff presentation at the
Appeals Commission meeting, the petitioner distributed a new survey which indicated their
need for a reduction down to 2' for the side yard setback. Because this new setback
request is precedent setting, staff's recommendation has changed from have no
recommendation to recommending denial of this request. The size of the garage expansion
could be reduced to meet code or at least be within previously granted dimensions for side
yard setbacks.
APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION
At the February 9, 2000 Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR
#00-02. After a lengthy discussion which included mention of the petitioners lack of
hardship and design alternatives, the Appeals Commission voted to recommend denial of
the variance request. The motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends denial of Variance Request VAR #00-02, as alternatives to the
variance request do exist. The revised request is not within previously granted dimensions
and would be precedent setting.
STIPULATIONS
City Staff recommends if the variance request is granted that the following stipulations be
attached to approval.
103
:
1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of
addition.
2. Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage.
3. Garage shall not be used for any home occupations.
4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximity to
the property line.
5. Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a 10' setback
requirement for living space.
104
I �
. '.
Company:
Attn:
From:
Reference:
De.tc:
Pa�es:
'� Z'' . . � � '� _ . �- .�y%�-� 1 _.__... $ ---
Fax Transmittal
Lonnie
Dean
George Sroka Residence
C�ucsory structural review
Garage additiorz
Fcbruary 29, 2000
Transmittal 1 paBe
Information �
Total 2 pages
� ti
Lonnie,
We have reviewed the ckawing you fiuruished us indicating a garage addition for
the referenced residence. Based on our review xnd understanding of simiLar
projects, he following work would need to be performed to tise �xistin� siructute
to construct the addition as sh�own.
- Demolish existing hip roof structtue
- Derr�olish exist,i�g garage door wall and opening lintel
_ IJnderpimi amid/or rework footiag at new garage do�r lintel sup.port next to
existi�g structure
- Underpin andlor rewozk footing at both ends of existing porch beann
- New 16'-0" garage door lintei
- Remforce oT replace existing porch beam
I hope inEormation is su�cient for your needs.
Sincerely,
2
Denis Pan Z �l
GSRLS ROGERS & LaPAN, PA
ARCHITECTURE - ENG{NEERING
gsrJs! .fax
�
.�
�y
� N
n
.., •-. -- �-- ...
-�---�--- . _..-�„� . �� .
.. �• .
�
4�0
1. �� � ``f� �
' �
�
�. �
�
� �
� ;
�
..__ .. _r.--.�..J 11�-
��
�
�'
O
M
4�
�
�
�
•,,,�
0
.�
�
i
c�t
�O
(�
v
�
�
l�
�
�
���
� ��
� � ��
� , �
�
V
�.i
(■:,� t�
(�' �
O �
� �
.�
�
�
N
u
�
�
�
;
r
�
r
r
r
��
;
i
i —_
I
i T
I �� ;I,
i 1 1 j
i
i .! � r
' `� I �
`, i�_ -
~ 1-
.,., _,�
�
o , �
� � �
_�
:�
�
�
a
� 4
N �.
�
.
S �, �
�-F�
��
�' 3 -�
�
; Q
� Q
; � �
.} � s
.,t �
�
.�
0
�
�
S
T
�
l�
--�
�
� �
�
� �J
.� r � _
J
c.n 'a`
ti
� �
1
� �
3��. �
�
� �
y
� y
� ,
�
�
�
i
cost estimate - Geor e unit value linea� feet formula area SS MOOIFY
Sroka EXISTINO
1363 53rd Ave NE STRUCTURE
Fride MN 55421
Consuuction Summa
Surve E400.00
Variance E� �
Buildin Permit
5150.00
Demolition •
tear out framin SF $6.50 400 $2,gpp,pp
tear out shin les g a2q,gp 5100 �
remove slab SF $11.35
5450.00
Dum ster - removai Y 50 $7qp.pp i740,pp
Excavation C a4.68 53/3 17.66 $82.65
trench
haulin excess material not included
Under innin SF E21.85 10 5218.50
8eams - micro s� �
Site work - rass and lan6n $p pp
Foundation s tem com onents - 24"x12" LF $21.85 29+12+12 53 $1,158.05 $500.00
3000 si concrete
forms - 4 uses
reinforcin
lacin concrete ;
ke �
connectin metal dowels #4 bars � �
5°,6 to match existin conditions
I I
Backfillin $0 �
Block foundadon wall SF $5.50 53 53x2.66 140 $770.00
8" Block
Reinforcin eve other course I
i
Concrete Slab - inside ara e SF ;2.56 29x12 350 $896.00 s100,00
4" thick
4" ravel
Poi eth lene barrier 10 mil
buikhead, ex ansion �oints
wiremesh 6x6 - 10l10 �
lacement
screet and howei
5°.6 to match existin conditions �
Concrete Slab - exterior drivewa $866.00
Exterior frame wall SF $7.09 56+Zgp+� Zp+ I 516 � $3,658.44
2x4 wood stud 16" C
1!2" CDX Sheathin
red cedar shin les 71/2" ex osure �
15# felt a er
31l2" insulation
5/8" GWB - Needs to be X - 1 hr
baseboard (
aint � ��
I
Rooftrusses SF 32.50 28X2X12 672 $1,680.00 $1,680.00
Roof S stem SF $6.75 28x12+14 728 $4,914.00
see trusses above for structure
1/2" CDX Sheathin �
15# fek a er
as hatt shin les
roof trim
I
312" insulaUon
1/2" GWB i
aint
� utter �
vents
Restructurin Existin RoofS tem SF $3.25 336 $1,092.00 $1,092.00
Electric
i $500.00
Doors �
two 1 hour rated wood Eq $225.00 2 $450.00
ara e EA 5825.00 � t I 5825.00 $450.00
�
TOTAL I � I � S18 342J4 56 146.50
�i3.� �B.S� a���
�83, o v
�.
�
�i
,
�
I
�- �
0
Q
u�
�
�
r
------- ;' �O.j
i�
� o.2p�
1
j � + ; ��
. .r l4 .�.' ? �
�
--------` tio.r
. :.; ._�z��:
���__ '° i
�
�
�
3
_. ._. _� .
M
Certificate af Survey
for
Sroka Residence
1363 53rd Ave Northeast
Fr�dley MN, SS421
ao. ao p � at
0
_ vv. cv r�igV�7 ...�.... ��
t0 l .0.2p•� �
o � � _ � � ..�: .;Y ` -..�r �
�.m �� F[F•��: 0.�1.
-----� c.��_..,._�_.___._.._
� �
.�;`_ ,
''UtIIITY �t�i0 QRAIMAGE ;
,�
EAS�IENT
:� _
_ _ .
_ , ...._ _.. �
.� ..
� �S W ' - - ... . .
��
W'y'
T��
.•
�
56 1
, � • �
—___—J
_ ._ _ ..L.
GARAGE ;; E X I ST I NG ���
� � HOUSE N
� �
� �
�3.3 ��.80 ' ���9.5 2�.6a
�1 - - _ -
8 }
W
�
�
� � 91'20'S3'
t ` .
. �
� � l
♦�.�
10.3
X
1
�
/
_ .,..
r
�����������_�_
�
\
��a
NM
tA tt'1
. .
r �
•-• •-
• DEMOIES fQUND
ifl�N �NT
� D�NOTES SET
1RpV �NT
EASE�ENTS SF10rN
PER PLAT OF
S�MMANtS}?ROM'S COURT
l�i/if 1 1 j�
�:� �',j -��._�_.�����__.
.� �x';>��"�:y
�1 . •'-' y C
�
�
�
�
�
10.5 3�.
� 1.5 `�` f.5 � �`��.. �___ i-------
� , .
.� ! , ,,
�`. R �F;;::. :
���� PfF'EL1NE ^ : a cj;;w. �
� �' E ASEAiENT
/� t . '
/
,
�
�
/
/
80. Ofl p t ot __
79.88 meas
. ;�
+
t i �''� ; �
��rw���T�� r�.���r'
�� '�� ;
s-
0
M
; 53 RD AVENUE NORTH �
-------.__ _._._._--•---•--- - ._•-•-•---._ .-�_ .__ _
I�r.ra
�
r•d
rw+�►«wh+r.i,w•.�.�.,,�...�r•
��u.a�w .r.Wr+rww�IW.,tl��wa�41��+
�.. �
LEGAI DESCRiQil�t: s,.t�•a�•�+�+�••r�ar.�wwrr�...
�....,,.. �ot 14. 81odc 2. Swonstrom's Court .:�����
►""�"'"" ddditipl• A�cO, AliflfieSOtO �.
' 11A1��i � . . �}j � 1q7rt 1a1
Rft T� T iC � 7 T O 1 1 O!J dC T S�t1 f1n 7n Oa J
City of Fridley Land Use Application
VAR-00-02 February 9, 2000
GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Gearge Sroka
1363 53`d Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Requested Action: �
Variance _ .
Purpose:
To decrease the required side yard setback
from 5' to 2' 6" to allow a garage
expansion.
Existing Zoning:
Residential - 1
Location:
1363 53`d Avenue NE
Size:
9,405 sq. ft. .22 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Single Family & R-1
E: Single Family & R-1
S: Single Family & R-1
W: Single Family & R-1
Comprehensive
Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan
Zoning
Ordinance Conformance:
Sec. 205.07:03.D.(2).(b) requires a minunum side
yard setback of 5' for a garage.
Zoning History: .
Lot platted in 1959.
Home built in 1959.
Legal Description of Properly:
Lot14, Block 2, Swanstrom Ct. Add.
Council Action:
March 6, 2000
Public Utilities:
Home is connected.
Transportation:
Home is accessed via 53`d Avenue.
Physical Characterisrics:
Lot is covered by urban landscape, home
and existing garage.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Petitioner is seeking variance to expand existing
single car garage into a two car garage.
SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP
"Presently, all the houses on the street have a
doz�ble garage. This is the only house that was
bccilt with a single garage. "(Full letter attached)
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff has no recommendation on this
request as it is within previously granted
dimensions.
VAR #94-12 6830 Washington Street
Setback reduced to 2.2' for a
� �, _ � ;
_,�� �• y 1
� �� �
� .N.�� �
(View of e�cisting garage)
Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin
106
VAR #00-02
Analvsis .
George Sroka, petitioner, is seeking a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 5' to
2'6" in order to construct an 11'4" wide by 28' long garage expansion at 1363 53`d Avenue NE. The
home is a walkout style built on a steep slope and constructing a"two deep" garage expansion would
not be feasible. The slopes also prevent the peritioner from constructing a detached garage in the rear
yard.
The home was built in 1959 with a single car garage, as code allowed. In the petitioners accompanying
written narrative and hardship statement, the petitioner states, "lots having a minimum area of 9,000
square are required to have a double garage. This action would put the lot in compliance." To clarify
this code section, staff points out that the peririoners home is currently in compliance with all zoning code
requirements. The double garage requirement only applies to new construcrion.
Staff Recommendation
City Staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within previously granted dimensions.
VAR #94-12 6830 Washington Street
Setback reduced to 2.2' for a garage expansion.
Stipulations
City staff recommends that if the variance is granted that the following stipulations be attached to
approval.
1. All necessary building pemuts shall be obtained from the City prior to construction of addition.
2. Exterior finish and shingles on expansion shall match the existing home and garage.
3. Garage shall not be used for any home occupations.
4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its proximiry to the property
line.
Garage plan shall not be modified to include porch behind addition due to a 10' setback
requirement for living space.
. � , , _.
A � b §.
' V
� �� � j .f
� �i ;
Garage
expansion � ��
area. �_v�
'��
107
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 9, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #00-
02. BY GEORGE SROKA:
Per Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the
required side yard setback for an attached accessory structure from 5 feet to 2
feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2,
Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at 1363 53�d Avenue
MOTION by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Tynjala, to waive the reading and open the
public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:35 P.M.
Mr. Bolin, Planning Assistant, stated the petitioner's hardship states: "Presently all of
the houses on the street have a double garage. This is the only house that was built
with a single garage."
Mr. Bolin stated that staff has no recommendation on this request as it is within
previously granted dimensions. Variance #94-12 granted at 6830 Washington Street
allowed the setback to be reduced to 2.2 feet for a garage expansion. Staff
recommends that if the variance is granted, the following stipulations be attached:
1. All necessary building permits shall be obtained from the City prior to the
construction of the addition.
2. Exterior finish and shingles on the expansion shalt match the existing home and
garage.
3. The garage shall not be used for any home occupation.
4. The west wall of the garage shall meet all fire rating requirements due to its
proximity to the property line.
5. The garage plan shall not be modified to include a porch behind addition to a 10
foot setback requirement for living space.
Mr. Bolin stated there is a porch area behind the existing portion of the garage. The fifth
stipulation states that they do not want to see the building plan altered to extend that
porch out so that it is within the ten foot encroachment of the living area. The
petitioner's plans indicate the it is all going to be a garage so that should not be a
problem. The petitioner's new site plan shows that the garage currently sits
approximately 13.3 feet from the side yard. The new site plan also shows that with the
1:
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 2
11 foot addition onto the garage, it will then sit 2 feet 6 inches back from the property
line. The neighboring property does sit ten feet back from the property line.
Mr. Kuechle stated that there was some consideration for changing City Code because
there are so many situations in the City where people wish their single car garage could
be converted into a two car garage. This usually gets the garage too far into the five
foot setback requirement.
Mr. Bolin stated that the City Code was changed a few years back to address this issue.
The caveat to the Code reads that you can come to within three feet of the property line
if you are expanding a single car garage into a double car garage. The total width of the
new garage should not exceed 22 feet. In this case, they are over 25 feet so it would
require this garage to be set back five feet rather than three feet if it were only 22 feet
across. They looked at other options for this property as far as ga�age location. With
the walk-out, there really is no other place to put this expansion.
Dr. Vos stated that the new survey states that the garage corner in the front to the lot
line is 13.3 feet and in the back is 13.7 feet.
Ms. Lonnie Sroka, 3400 Hayes St. N.E., stated that the original survey she had was
from the City. They are not ten feet from the property line on the other side and that
house is not ten feet from the property line either. They are 10.7 feet away. In the front.
they would be down to two feet, and in the back they would be down to 2.2 feet.
Dr. Vos stated that the reason he brought that up is that they are going to be giving a
variance request to a certain point. If they say that 2.6 feet away from the lot line is
okay, they are not going to get an 11.4 garage in there. They are losing six inches
which is enough of a garage to cause a problem.
Ms. Sroka stated that the survey does state that the addition is closer to the property
line.
Mr. Jones asked if it was within Code if they moved the garage within three feet.
Mr. Bolin stated that there would not be a need for the variance if they kept the total
width of the garage under 22 feet or less. The new survey will change the request by
two feet. That is not within previously granted dimensions.
Ms. Sroka stated that if the house didn't have the hip coming down and bearing on that
wall, then they would have approached it in a totally different way. The houses in the
neighborhood are not right next to each other. They sort of step down which also helps
to create a sense of privacy. Everybody on the street has a two car garage.
Dr. Vos asked Ms. Sroka if the existing west wall was going to be left as is and then
they would put another bay next to it with some entrance to get from one part of the
garage to the other.
109
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 3
Ms. Sroka stated they would actually do a gable on the end.
Mr. Tynjala stated there is a steep drop-off there so stepping down would not work out.
Mr. Jones asked Mr. Bolin if he heard anything from the neighbors.
Mr. Bolin stated they had two calls. Both were just curious and were seeking
clarification about what was going to happen. They did not oppose the variance.
Ms. Sroka stated that the neighbor next door is not opposed.
Dr. Vos asked if it was true that the neighbor next door cannot build any closer than ten
feet to the lot line because it was a living area.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct.
Dr. Vos stated that the building would not really affect their ability to build out to the
east.
Mr. Bolin stated that is correct.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:53 P.M.
Dr. Vos stated that granting this variance would set a precedent. The original plans
looked like there would be 2.5 feet. The most they have ever granted is 2.2 feet and
now they are down to 2 feet because of the survey.
Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend denial because all the required codes could
be met here. The existing garage is 14.8 feet and, according to the survey, the
petitioner can add another 8.3 which will allow a garage width of a little over 23 feet.
That would be a pretty reasonable amount for a two car garage. There are fairly clear
alternatives to meet the code requirements.
Mr. Jones stated that he tended to agree with Mr. Kuechle. It is not clear to him that
there is an alternative because of the roof structure. You can prop up some beams and
microlams to carry those loads and still meet the code. He is inclined to vote against
the variance.
Mr. Tynjala stated that he is wavering in terms of setting a precedence. He is not overly
concerned about the fact that they are talking about a couple of inches.
110
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 PAGE 4
Dr. Vos stated that one of the things the petitioner has to show is a hardship. He sees
the hardship in the fact that the garage probably cannot be built to the back because of
the way the land drops off.
Ms. Sroka stated that they did look at that option. They were looking at maybe putting
in a driveway going around to the back. It really does not make sense to make all of
these modifications for a second garage for a little house that is only worth so much
money. She would rather try to get a variance and add a bay rather than go through all
of this construction.
Dr. Vos stated that economics is not a hardship.
Ms. Sroka stated that at a certain price it does not make sense to spend that kind of
money; then you might as well buy another home that already has a double car garage.
She has not had the structural engineers plans priced out yet. She could have both
plans priced out and bring them back.
MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of Variance
Request, VAR #00-02, by George Sroka to reduce the required side yard setback for an
attached accessory structure f�om 5 feet to 2 feet 6 inches to allow the expansion of an
existing garage on Lot 14, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court Addition, generally located at
1363 53�d Avenue
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Kuechle stated this variance request would go to City Council on March 6.
Mr. Jones stated that it might be beneficial for Ms. Sroka to talk with the Fridley
Remodeling Advisor.
111
: AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL -MEETING OF MARCH� 6, 2000
CRY OF '
FRIDLEY
I NFORMAL STA T US REPORTS
112
March 6, 2000
To: City of Fridley Minnesota
Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor
Robert L. Barnettte, Councilmember-at-large
Steven E. Billing, Councilman Ward 1
Richard P. Wolfe, Councilman Ward 2
Ann R. Bolkcom, Councilman Ward 3
From: Residents and Voters of Fridley
RE: ENACTING A MANUFACTtJRED HOME PARK CLOSING ORDINANCE
We the undersigned 319 Fridley residents, respectfuUy request the City of Fridley to adopt a
Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095.
This measure will provide relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home
parks in the event of displacement through a manufactured home park closing.
The following paragraphs appear in an article titled "Why Pass a Park Closing Ordinance?"
prepared by All Park Altiance for Change (APAC) the non-profit organization that works with
residents of manufactured home parks which explains the need for these ordinances to be
enacted by municipalities. (See attached copy of article for complete text.)
"Owners of traditional, stick-built homes are fully compensated when development forces
them to abandon their homes but residents of manufactured home parks are not.
Although they own their home, manufadured home park residents rent the lot space
below. Because most parks generally don't accept older homes, some residents are
vulnerable to having nowhere to move their home if they become displaced through a
park closing. This `immobile' nature of mobile homes of�en subjects tenants to ext►-eme
financial loss when they are forced to literally abandon their homes without receiving any
financial compensation. Without protection for their homes some residents could end up
homeless when their park closes.
In 1987, the Minnesota state legislature passed a law allowing cities to pass park closing
ordinances to protect their citizens living in manufactured home parks. Through this
ordinance, residents have some financial protection should their park ever close. If a
park closes for redevelopment purposes, through the ordinance the park owner and/or
new developer pays reasonable relocation costs to move all homes to other parks within
a 25-mile radius or buys out the homes at their appraised market values if they can't be
moved."
There are two manufactured home parks located in the City of Fridley: Fridley Terrace Mobile
Home Park has 326 lots, and Park Plaza Estates has 84 lots. The passage of the ordinance will
protect approximately 400 homeowners in Fridley.
The likelihood that the manufactured home parks located in Fridley may be closed for
redevelopment is a legitimate concern for the homeowners given that both parks are located on
Highway 65 in a city that has little land left to develop. Fridley Terrace MHP sits on 22 acres of
prime real estate with a vast amount of frontage on Highway 65 and contains only three
permanent structures that would need to be razed for redevelopment. This piece of property
could be very appealing to a developer.
,.
Page 2
Manufactured Park Closing Ordinance
March 6, 2000
Manufactured home parks have been closed for redevelopment in Hopkins and Etk River where
circumstances were similar to Fridley. Fortunatety for the residents in those cities, Park Closing
Ordinances were passed and manufactured homeowners were compensated for being displaced.
Before any redevelopment proposals are considered for the Fridley manufactured park properties,
it would be prudent for the City of Fridley to enact a Park Closing Ordinance that informs the
properly owners and prospective buyers who will be responsible for compensating the displaced
residents.
A voluntary anonymous survey of 115 manufactured homeowners who live in Fridley was taken
during the week of February 28, 2000. The survey indicates that 81.7% of the respondents have
older homes that cannot be moved into othe� parks and would face the loss of the equity in their
homes should the either park be closed for redevelopment. While 12.2% of the respondents
indicate they are owners of newer homes that may be relocated to other parks within a 25-mile
radius, it cost thousands of dollars to do so.
41.7% of the respondents stated they have family income levels that are lower than $30,000.
These families would have a very difficult time finding replacement affordable housing and wouid
be financially devastated should their parks be closed without the financial protection a Park
Closing Ordinance would provide them. (See attached summary of the voluntary survey for
further demographic information.)
To date nine Minnesota municipalities have passed Park Closing Ordinances. (See attached
"Information on Minnesota Park Closing Ordinances" flyer provided by APAC.) These ordinances
have been tested in the courts and are fair for all parties involved in a park closing. Attached you
wiil find a copy of the Elk River Park Closing Ordinance passed in 1997, and the Ro�vitle Park
Closing Ordinance passed on February 28, 2000.
The absence of a Manufactured Park Closing Ordinance in the Fridley codes leaves the city's
manufactured home owners facing an unnecessary financial burden should either of these parks
ever be closed for redevelopment.
Thank you for your consideration of enacting a very important ordinance.
Call me if you have any questions or comments:
)erri 0'Dell
Fridley Terrace MHP Homeowner
7303 Taylor St. NE
Fridley, MN 55432
(763) 795-8460
�HY PASS A PARK CLOSING ORDINAN E�
Owners of traditional, stick-built homes are fully compensated when development forces them to
abandon their homes but residents of manufactured home parks are not. Although they own their
home, manufactured home park residents rent the lot space below Because most parks generally
don't except older homes, some residents are vulnerable to having nowhere to move their home if
they become displaced through a park closing This "immobile" nature of mobile homes often
subjects tenants to extreme financial loss when a park closes because they are forced to literally
abandon their homes without receiving any financial compensation Without protection for their
homes, some residents could end up homeless when their park closes
ln 1987, the Minnesota state legislature passed a law allowing cities to pass park closing
ordinances to protect their citizens living in manufactured home parks Through this ordinance,
residents have some financial protection should their park ever close If a park closes for
redevelopment purposes, through the ordinance the park owner and/or new developer pays
reasonable relocation costs to move all homes to other parks within a 25-mile radius or buys out
the homes at their appraised market values if they can't be moved.
'I'he need for this legislation came out of a situation in Bloomington where Lyndale Lodge
Manufactured Home Park was sold to an import car dealership The price of one car was worth
twice the value of each home. The park owner made an enormous profit but the City of
Bloomington had no authority to require the park owner nor the purchaser to compensate
residents for their relocation costs or the value of their homes, if their homes could not be moved.
One day these residents had homes, the ne�ct day they had only the required 9 month notice to
move. This left these low-income residents financially devastated. Not being able to move their
homes anywhere, due to the age andlor condition of these homes and the financial costs residents
couldn't afford, these homes were sold for literally nothing; in order to get something, to people
who snatched them up and turned them into lake homes up north. This legislation was, then, to
give a city the authority to protect its park residents without preventing the park owner's right to
sell a manufactured home park for a profit.
Since the law doesn't require that cities pass this ordinance, park residents need to go in front of
their own city council and ask that they pass a park closing ordinance.
All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) is a non-profit organization that works with residents of
manufactured (mobile) home parks. We serve as a tenant's union, organizing residents to
understand and fight for their rights as home owners and as tenants. In the state of Minnesota,
APAC and residents have succeeded in passing park closing ordinances in eight cities, including
Bloomingtoq Burnsville, Hopkins, Elk River, Dayton, Lake Elmo, Moundsview, and Shakopee.
� ,,
�"
;�,
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
We, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully reque�t the Ctty of Fridley to adopt a Paric
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured 6ome parks in the event of
displacemeot t6rough a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
6omeowaers in Fridley.
rh \
��
�
Petition for A Fridiey Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
We, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to s�dopt a Paric
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residenb of manufactured home parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridiey.
nn
��
�
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
We, t6e underoigned Fridley residenb, respectfully request the City of Fridtey to adopt a Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. T6i� measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley re�idents of manufactured home parks in t6e event of
displacement t6rough a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
r m� � � ..� � i,z - - � �'�f
. �
� ��<<��
.1i � �A �
� �V
/ �/ ( � \ ''�—T�
. �_ k - (
Z
�'��
�
�
�
1 ��
� d
,� � f � �,���
/ � / � ✓ � �J��
._ � . �3 � � ,�%�:�
,�`� `.��� �...`
i� G i � i
r- , �s� .. , i
�
��� i ,
' _ i� . � . %�i�
�.�r� ;,� . , , - �
, , �
��� . _� .
I . _
�
�� �
C.�-�l� N
� L��. _ �_ �
yy ���
�
" it r)- 7. ���_ ��1.
er= -�'�����^
�� /,> �� ���\ '�
�� �
7� a - � 9 �.- o
7 / � - 7�/C� %
/7— � b
� �� a� �s
a�9- .��78
� n 9 _-t 1 [t 4�
, r,f' �
�
��
�
s�'
�5�-:
;.S 3
��
�
,, ���,-
� ,.
J-
�
�
Petition for A Fridiey Manufactured Home Park Closiag Ordinaace
We, the undenigned Fridley residenb, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Parlc
Closing Ordinance aut6orized by Minnesota State Ststute 327C.095. T6is measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
NAME _ _ . _ ADDRESS TELEPHONE
_ r-.
-7l 7-35y�
. �� _�
��
�
�
�
P
e
K�E2
Y.
�
�
�
'��-
d���'o���
� - .
. .
.
,� �
�
�
�
�Z�'s =
�
i �
�
s�.
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
We, t6e underoigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the Ctty of Fridley to adopt � Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured 6ome psrks in the event of
displacement t6rough a park ctosing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
i ( ��ti��(. ' t c�/�,c � u �;���c.Ck _ � � l � � v � �
,
�
r:
�3 y �J
w , ��
W . C,i �
� �., t
;�
I`L
= ��
C � Y
i Z �8 � � Ny
� 7 . -���- -��'r
�►�t��� _ ,`r��n_ ��r.�1r� r�i.��f�r.
� ' � : � ��
�,.
�� �. . . � �,:�. �. ��• � . , t . ` �
•,l, � �- � ; . ��
. R
� . � � -s
r�. s�� . ��
/ "
Petition for A Fridley Msnufactured Home Psrk Closing Ordinance
We, t6e underoigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City oi Fridtey to adopt � Parlc
Closing Ordinance aut6orized by Miunesota State Statute 32'7C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured 6ome parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protert an esNmated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
,�
�
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
We, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Park
Closing Ordinance aathorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
,�,^
�
��
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closiag Ordinance
We, t6e undersigned Fridley residenb, respectfully request t6e City of Fridtey to �dopt a Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compeasation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in t6e event of
displacement t6rough a park ciosing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeownero in Fridley.
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing 4rdinaace
�'e, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
;��
/���;
gy.
.
� Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Ctosing Ordinance
vVe, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
�'� � � � � < � G/ _ %�F� �3���
� z ����''-� 4�"'- /� �� " 7�C C' c>C�
.�,�-- / ', , ' � �-� ' ) , � ;�`-' .j.,:.L
f'��, - � ,, �
,i" � ", %" . .,�; . �,�,�,���, �. , :� - � ,� -`)/3z.
'�- -; . _� � ._ _,
� i, }� 4...���.1� �1,.� .�,...4.V.1 �: ��iJ'+l^' . l �� ..� 1 • } � i�{.f -r! . � 4 ! .J�. - � ui � • � .' Gi �
� \ -� �. ( 1 Ov'L7_: � "1 7� � C'1 �J�@ � / �i 7 `'� �' y / �i' �
.L�-�� _ a S T C. • SL L� i
�y�,�y�y�`'` �ti��l� �7 � Z1 w-(° � Q�.C,r `-Z �t Z- �{ Zl D
J
� ��
3a�
��
7
�
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
VVe, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of
' displacement throug6 a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
- /'-.';�� �� _� ,���,i�-._. �� yi�`" .� .� ,�..� �=1. U c _ . � . 7 `> �� �� 7 � �
�
�
0
n
0
0
.: �� ��.�— ?..Z�z
di�%- 7 G 3— 7�y- o S�S
' ���- �v73
� - )i� S 7,�'� � 3� �/'7
. i� l � t n `'�l i�i _'2�� �
r�l
�
'
�
>
S� ��
.' ` r
� �".
✓
Petition for A Fridley Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
We, the undersigned Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Park
Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. This measure will provide
relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks in the event of
displacement through a park closing. The passage of this ordinance will protect an estimated 400
homeowners in Fridley.
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE
-O 2- ,3-0��-
s 7.Z3 �1 .t,� . STn� R• %D'G 0758
� -
-� � , � 5 �_ . � �'�j/� L�
� , ,. � ,. �`"�
_ �- �6 ���
/ y . °` , � �1 —�yy�'
- I �
f . 'a�:�t.. .y.7:i � ��� � r'"�'.� i` �.i%, rb� -� i!.0 Z`•�.'.r'*a�;.' ``'- r'�t' . ,/ /�"�
= ' fv '
f %�o �`r ( ' ' �s /v� - Z - S �c�
° S Z �O- �%i
� v� %Y � 3 7 — /t'
1 a� � St�� = ' 2 -2�7
I � IZ St� l� �-Z �
c� A- L E� `13�1� Q� R�� � �� �� S'13a —7 � y�� 6
' "` ,�-- �73�1fl � 5 �r� 7 � - �{ � ( c.e
� � � 5 �����y�
7 /✓� h . MN `,a� ?.� � S"��
. ,
%y G(� � l�r� % iG� �< < � S S�i 3 2 �% / 7� � I`/
59 . ' 32 - o - Y� /I
so .3�3 � Cv�. .��C, �, � .
„
�'.P� ��-1 � �or — l�. F�, � � �{
^ _. -
��_ ' �� '(�c►-� t2 �r; � G
? Y 3 " �c�� s� /i� c- � -6 - �d Sb�
L `
/�-� )a� 30 on�r►�g� � �'f � %? - ?/ ?S
i
��tn-,�, !�(.L��.' i � �J (J�K��� :�' /.� /� v `.<� E�
3 ��
ANNONYMOUS SURVEY OF 115 FRIDLEY MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS
TAKEN DURING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 28, 2000
AGE OF HOME:
LESS THAN 10 YEARS
10 YEARS AND OLDER
NOT INDICATED ON SURVEY
NUMBER
14
94
7
IN OME: NUMBER
ABOVE $30,000 ANNUAL 34
LESS THAN $30,000 ANNUAL 48
FIXED INCOME/SSI/VETS DISABILILTY 12
NOT INDICATED ON SURVEY 21
REASONS RESPONDENTS LIVE IN
FRIDLEY MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS:
ECONOMIC
CLOSE TO WORK
CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CLOSE TO SCHOOLS
SAFE LOCATION
OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
SINGLE PARENTS
NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTSJ
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
DISABILITY/SSI
LOW WAGES
FIXED INCOME
SPECIAL NEEDS OR HANDICAPPED
NUMBER
80
34
17
19
25
NUMBER
12
9
10
26
26
5
PERCENTAGE
12.2%
81.7%
6.1%
29.6%
41.7%
10.4%
18.3%
PERCENTAGE
70%
30%
15%
17%
22%
PERCENTAGE
10%
8%
9%
23%
23%
4%
Information on Minnesota Park Closin� Ordinances
(1)BLOOM INGTON Planning Division 984-8920
Greg Brooker (Legal Dept. )
Ordinance passed October 30, 1989
One park, Collins, has closed since Residents received an average of $2,351 in relocation
costs This ordinance was appealed at the Minnesota Supreme Court as unconstitutional
by the park owner, but was thrown out.
(2)BURNSVILLE Planning Division 895-4455
Ordinance passed April 7, 1997. There are three parks there still.
(3)DAYTON 427-4589
Ordinance passed February 25, 1997 The park is still there The relocation costs would
cover moving the house (dissembling and reassembling), "hook-up" charges, insurance �
costs for value replacement of property, and costs of repairs or modifications in moving
the homes '
(4)ELK RIVER 441-7420
Tony Gleko (Developer Rep) 339-7131
Ordinance passed November 17, 1997. Elk River Terrace closed Dec 31, I 998
(5)HOPKINS City Hall 935-8474
Ordinance passed June 4, 1990. Pines Park Closed in 1997. Residents received market
value.
(6)LAKE ELMO 777-5510
Ordinance passed in 1992. Cimarron Park still there.
� (7)MOUNDSVIEW 717-4000
Ordinance passed in 19`%6
_ (8)SHAKOPEE 445-3650
Ordinance passed March 16, 1999
sliding scale approach. Valley Haven Park is still there
APPLE VALLEY City Council is cunently drafting up a pazk closing ordinance.
Mayor Mary Hamann-Roland City Hall (612} 953-2500
�9� �.o�Se (/��� ��°, �� Q" � /a'- �,Zt�O
Q r�c�i nc nf� �pa.SSed�. %'�1,� /��c�c/ �� d21�
/
.'
Subj: Manufactured Home Park Closing
Date: 3/6/00 12:01:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: cityclerk�ci.elk-ri�er.mn.us (Sandy Peine)
To: JODELL7303�40L.COM
File: C1010.DOC (18944 bytes)
DL Time (40000 bps): < 1 minute
Dear Jerri,
Here is a copy of the ordinance as you requested.
Sandy Peine
City Clerk
- Headers
Retum-Path: <cityclerk@ci.elk-river.mn.us>
Received: from rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (rly-zd04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.228]) by air-zd02.mail.aol.com (4E9.17) with ESMTP; Mon,
06 Mar 2000 15:01:10 -0500
Recei�ed: irom or1.onrampinc.net (or1.onrampinc.net [207.51.130.2]) by riy-zd04.mx.aol.com (�+69.17) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Mar
2000 15:01:05 1900
Recei�ed: from loriz (pp210.onrampinc.net [207.51.130.210]) by or1.onrampinc.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SM'TP id NAA15120 for
<JODELL7303�40L.COM>; Mon, 6 Mar 200013:58:06 -0600 (CS�
From: "Sandy Peine" <cityclerk�ci.elk-ri�er.mn.us>
To: <JODELL7303@}10L.COM>
Subject: Manufactured Home Park Closing
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:57:40 -0600
Message-ID: <LNBBLPPGDNFBAIKCCACDMEMHCAAA.cityclerk@ci.elk-river.mn.us>
M IME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="-=_NextPart_000 0001_016F8773.FOAFB8E0"
X Priority: 3 (Normal)
X MSMaiI-Priority: Normal
X Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Monday, March 06, 2000 Amerlca Onllne: JODELL7303 Page: 1
t.
SECTION 1010 - MANiJFACTURED HO�ME PARK CLOSINGS
SECTION 1010.00. PURPOSE
In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the
closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City
Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare
will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced residents
of such parks. The purpose of this Section is to require park
owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and
purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay additional
compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 327C.095.
SECTION 1010.02. DEFINITIONS
The following words and terms when used in this Section shall
have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
CLOSURE STATEMENT: A statement prepared by the park owner clearly
stating the park is closing, addressing the availability,
location and potential costs of adequate replacement housing
within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is closing
and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes
located in the park.
DISPLACED RESIDENT: A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured
home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the
members of the resident's household, as of the date park owner
submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission.
LOT: An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used
for the accommodation of a manufactured home.
MANtJFACTURED HOME: A structure, not affixed to or part of real
estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the
traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40)
feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three
hundred twenty (320) or more �square feet, and which is built on a
permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or
without a permanent foundation when connected to the required
utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
and electrical system contained in it.
PARK OWNER: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person
acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a
park.
Person: Any individual, corporation, firm, partnership,
incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or
commercial entity.
10_75
SECTION 1010.04. NOTICE OF CLOSING.
If a manufactured home park is to be closed, converted in whole
or part to �nother use or terminated as a use of the property,
the park owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to the
closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide
a copy of a closure statement to a resident of each manufactured
home and to the City's Planning Commissian.
SECTION 1010.06. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the
City Council and request the City Council to schedule a public
hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days
prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured
home in the park stating the time, place and purpose of the
hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of
the names and addresses of at least one resident of each
manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement
is submitted to the Planning Commission.
SECTION 1010.08 PUBLIC HF�ARING.
A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the
purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what
impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and
the park owner.
SECTION 1010.10 PAYMENT OF RELOCATION CO5TS.
1. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and
upon submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or other
verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to
the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the
manufactured home to another manufactured home park located
within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park that is being
closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation.
Reasonable relocation costs shall include:
A. The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced
resident's manufactured home and personal property,
including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving and
reassembling any attached appurtenances, such as parches,
decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after
notice of closure or conversion of the park, and utility
"hook-up" charges.
B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the
property being moved.
C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required
in order to take down, move and set up the manufactured
home.
10.76
�
2. If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a
twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed or
some other agreed upon distance, and the resident elects not to
tender title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitled
to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs
awarded to other residents in the park.
3. A displaced resident compensated under this section shall
retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible
for its prompt removal from the manufactured home park.
4. The park owner shall make the payments under this section
directly to the person performing the relocation services after
performance thereof, or, upon submission of written evidence of
payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall
reimburse the displaced resident for such costs.
5. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other
verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured home to
the park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability to
pay relocation expenses.
SECTION 1010.12 PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
If a resident either cannot, or chooses not to, relocate the
manufactured home within a 25-mile radius of the park that is
being closed, or some other agreed upon distance, and tenders
title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitled to
additional compensation to be paid by the purchaser of the park
in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park
closing. In such instance, the additional compensation shall be
an amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured
home as determined by an independent appraiser experienced in
mobile home appraisal approved by the City Administrator. The
purchaser shall pay the cost of the appraisal or shall reimburse
the City for any advances it makes to such appraiser for such
cost. The purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow
account, established by the park owner, for distribution upon
transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid
to the displaced residents no later than the ninety (90) days
prior to the earlier of closing of the park or its conversion to
another use.
SECTION 1010.14 PENALTY.
1. Violation of any provision of this Section shall be a
misdemeanor.
2. Any provisions of this Section may be enforced by injunction
or other appropriate civil remedy.
3. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction
with reuse of manufactured home park property unless the park
io_��
�
owner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the
park has provided additional compensation in accordance with the
requirements of this Section. Approval of any application for
rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planned unit
development or variance in conjunction with a park closing or
conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the
requirements of this Chapter.
io.�s
. � • � .
J - •
�
Passed and adopted b;- the Gic�• Council of the City of Elk Ri�•er chis 17th day of
March, 199 � .
-�
,,, .�, :_� s �_
,�
,
; . �'- � :' . .'A. > -
/ .
en � A. Duitsman
Ma� r
�,
./.� .� � . . • . .�-
Sandra A. Thackera�� ,�'"
City Clerk
.��
..k:::�: ,
�- ���,
��
��.,� '�-� - �
�� � .
Y
_ , 3dr{�g � .. .
•' : � -=
�•
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE III, BY ADDING A
NEW CHAPTER 313 TO THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE
CONCERNING MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, �#B
REQUIRING OWNERS TO PAY RELOCATION EXPENSES TO
DISPLACED RESIDENTS UPON PARK CLOSINGS
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title III of the of the Roseville City Code is amended by adding a
new Chapter 313 to read as follows:
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS
SECTION 313.01 PURPOSE
In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of
manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and
genetal welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced home owners
and renters e€ in such pazks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require park owners to
pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers of manufactured home
parks to pay additional cornpensation, pursuant tu the authority granted under Minnesota
Stati:tes, Section 327C.095.
SECTI4N 313.02. DEFINITIONS
The following words and terms when used in this Ordinance shall have the following
meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
CLOSURE STATEMENT: A statement prepazed by the pazk owner clearly stating
the pazk is closing, addressing the availability, l�cation and potential costs of adequate
replacement housing within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the pazk that is closing and
the probable relocation costs of the m: nufactured homes located in the pazk.
DISPLACED OWNER: A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home who rents
a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resideni's household, as
of the date the pazk owner submits a closure statement to the Cit-��g
���.
DISPLACED RE�TTER: A resident of a renter-occupied manufactured home wi�o rents
- both the lot and the manufactured home in the tnanufactured home park, including the
members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure
statement to the City' .
<r
�
DISPLACED RESIDENT: Displaced ovmer or displaced renter.
LOT: An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the
accommodation of a manufactured home.
MANUFACTLJRED HOME: A structure, not affixed to or part of real estate,
transportable in one e€ or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or
more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three
hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and
designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
and electrical system contained in it.
PARK OWNER: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on
behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a park.
PERSON: Any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, incorporated and
unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity.
SECTION 313.03 NOTICE OF CLOSING
If a manufactured hor:�e park is to be closed, converted in whole or part to another use or
terminated as a use of the property, the park owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to
the clos�are, conversion ta another use or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure
statement to a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's �g
�;e�.tss�� Communitv Development Director.
SECTION 313.G4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Upon receipt of the closure statement, the Community Development Director shall
schedule a hearing on the proposed pazk closing before the �a Crty's Planrung
Commission
. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days
prior to the public hearing to a resideni of each manufactured home in the park stating the
time, place and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a
list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the
park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the City' D'°^^;^^ r^^"""'°;^"•
SECTION 313.05 PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing shail be held before the City �et�s� Planning Commission for the
- purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing
may have on the displaced residents and the park owner.
,' . .
SECTION 313.06 PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED
�A#��OWNERS
1. After service of the closure statement by the pazk owner and upon submittal by the
displaced �� owner of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the
pazk owner shall pay to the displaced ��� owner the reasonable cost of relocating the
manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty-five (25)
mile radius of the pazk that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing
operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include:
A. The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced ��s owner's
manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost of
disassembling, moving and reassembling sheds and any attached appurtenances, such as
porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of closure or
conversion of the pazk, and utility "hook-up" charges.
B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved.
C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down,
move and set up the manufactured home.
2. If a��rE displaced owner cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-
five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon
distance, and the �� displaced owner elects not to tender title to the manufactured
home, the �si�� displaced owr:er is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average
of relocation costs awazded to other residents in the park.
3. A displaced ��i� owner comper.sated ur.der this section shall retain title to the
manufactured home and shall be responsible for its prompt remo��al from the
manufactured home park.
4. The park owner shall make the payments under this section directly to the persor,
preforming the relocation services afier performance thzreof, or, upon submission uf
written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, sha11 reimburse
the displaced resident ior such costs.
5. The displaced �� otivner must sub-nit a contract or other verified cost estimate for
relocating the manufactured home to the pazk owner as a condition to the park uwner's
liability to pay relocation expenses.
SECTI�N 313.07 PAY"MEI+IT OF ADDITIONAL COIe�iPENSATION TO
DISPLACE OWNERS
If a�s� displaced ewner either cannot or chooses not to relocate the manufactured
home within a 25-mile radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upc�r
distance and tenders title to the manLfactured home, the �s� displaced owner is
entitled to additional compensation to be paid by the purchaser of the park i�e addit onal
mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing. In such instance,
compensation shall be an amount equal to the estimated mazket value or the tax assessed
value of the manufactured home, whichever is greater, as determined by an independent
appraiser experienced in �1� manufactured home appraisal approved by the City
e�..�;„:�+•-�t , The purchaser shall pay the cost of the appraisal or shall reimburse the
City for any advances it makes to such appraiser for such cost. The purchaser shall pay
s�s� the additional compensation into an escrow account, established by the pazk owner,
for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the
displaced owners no later than the ninety (90) days prior to the eazlier of closing of the
park or its conversion to another use.
SECTION 313.08 PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED
RENTERS
1. After service of the closure statement by the pazk owner and upon submittal by the
displaced renter of a contractter �easeonable costs of relocating. Reasonab e relocatio�er
shall pay to the displaced ren
costs shall include:
A. The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced renter's personal
property•
B. The cost of insurauce for the replacement value. of the property being
moved.
C. The difference h2tween (tiew Lot Rent - Clos�d Lot Rent) for a period of
2 years, if the new lot rent is greater than the old lot rent.
SECTION 313.09 PErALTY
1. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor.
2, Any provisions of this Ordinance may be enforced by injunction or other
appropriate civil remedy.
3. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of manufactured
home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs and the
purchaser of the pazk has provided additional compensation in accordance with the
rc.quirements of the Ordinance• APProval of any application for rezoning, platting,
conditional use permit, P1a�ned wut develogment or variance in conjunction with a park
closing or conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the retluu'ements of this
Ordinance•
�. . , .
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage
and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, this _ day of ,
2000.
Signature lines: